(a) CHAIR’S INDICATION OF THE ORDER OF SANCTION
The Chair to set out the order of sanction which is considered appropriate.
(b) MEMBER’S REPRESENTATIONS AS TO SANCTION
To invite the Member to make representations on sanction.
(c) INVESTIGATING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIONS AS TO
SANCTION
To invite the Investigating Officer to make representations on sanction.
(d) STANDARD COMMITTEE TO CONFIRM WHETHER THEY HAVE
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO FORM A VIEW ON SANCTION
To allow for questions to be addressed to the Member and/or Investigating Officer.
Minutes:
a) CHAIR’S INDICATION OF THE ORDER OF SANCTION
The Chair reported that considering the determination that Councillor Williams has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct in the manner detailed in the Investigating Officer’s Report, this Committee was required to consider: -
a. Whether to impose a sanction;
b. Having due regard to the Adjudication Panel for Wales’ Sanctions
Guidance (where a sanction is to be imposed) what sanction to
impose;
c. When any sanction must take effect; and
d. Any recommendation which the Standards Committee would make to the
Council.
The Chair reported that the Council’s Procedure for Local Standards Hearings provides four decisions that are available to this Committee, and which may be appropriate in this matter, namely:
a. That no action is required;
b. Censure the Member;
c. Partial suspension of the Member for a period up to a maximum of six
months or the remainder of the Member’s term of office, whichever is the
shorter period;
d. Suspension of the Member for a period up to a maximum of six months or
the remainder of the Member’s term of office, whichever is the shorter
period.
The Chair reiterated the Standards Committee’s earlier agreement to exclude the press and public from the specific element of discussion on sanctions.
The Chair suggested that Councillor Williams and the Ombudsman’s Investigating Officer make their representations, in the first instance, and then exclude the press and public from the meeting to hear those further representations that are to be discussed in private.
(b) MEMBERS REPRESENTATIONS AS TO SANCTIONS
Councillor Williams was asked if he would like to make any representations on sanctions at this point? He replied that he did not at this point.
(c) INVESTIGATING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIONS AS TO SANCTIONS
The Ombudsman’s Investigating Officer was afforded an opportunity to present the Ombudsman’s representations on sanctions, which she accepted.
The Ombudsman’s Investigating Officer, Llinos Lake reported that based on the case of a breach of the Code that has been accepted by the Member and highlighted by this Committee today, it was now a matter for the Committee to decide whether there should be a sanction, and if so, what type of sanction that should be.
To assist the Committee in formulating its decision, she referred to the Adjudication Panel for Wales’ Guidance on sanction. She offered to send a copy of the Guidance to the Standards Committee. Paragraph 18 of the Guidance outlines the reasoning behind the sanction process: -
(a) To provide a disciplinary response to a case where an individual member has breached the Code;
(b) To produce a public record of the misconduct and the appropriate sanction;
(c) To ensure that the individual or anyone else does not behave in an improper manner in future;
(d) To promote a culture of compliance across the relevant authorities, and to foster public confidence in local democracy.
The Investigating Officer reported that, considering the Adjudication Panel for Wales’ Guidance in relation to the severity of the breach of the Code, it was clear that all of the breaches being considered were not trivial. The Guidance lists factors such as the nature and number of breaches, the actual outcomes and possible implications of the breach for any individual or individuals, the wider public and/or the entire Council, and to what extent the actions of the Member have brought disgrace upon his position, or the relevant authority, or how much potential there is for them to do so.
In considering these factors, the Ombudsman suggested that a sanction was appropriate under these circumstances. Furthermore, a decision not to take any further action would be inappropriate in this case, considering the negative impact on the Member’s reputation, caused by his remarks.
The Investigating Officer further explained that to assist the Committee further, it should be noted that the Ombudsman has considered the mitigating circumstances in this case. She explained that Councillor Williams had a history of good service within the Authority; his misconduct was an isolated incident and an expression of anger or frustration; his remarks were not directed at an individual nor intended to cause harm; the witnesses did not consider that Councillor Williams meant the remarks literally, and Councillor Williams took immediate corrective action.
Councillor Williams immediately apologised to those present at the meeting; he stepped down as Deputy Leader and referred himself to the Ombudsman; he has co-operated with the Ombudsman and the Standards Committee and has accepted that his comment breached the Code; he has expressed regret for making the comment and acknowledges the need to be more careful in the future when expressing his opinion.
Moving on to aggravating factors, the Investigating Officer detailed that Councillor Williams was an experienced Member, having been a member of the Council since 2008; at the time of his comment, he held a senior position within the Council, and he had also been a member of the Standards Committee during his time as a Councillor. The inflammatory and offensive nature of the comment was also said to be relevant, as well as the impact of the comment, including its extensive reporting in the media. Therefore, the attention had brought disrepute on the Local Authority.
The Investigating Officer further reported that when considering imposing a sanction on Councillor Williams, the Committee should consider Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. It was suggested that, considering that the breaches were found to be serious, any sanction would be proportionate to protect the rights of others, and Councillor Williams's Article 10 rights too. When contemplating imposing a sanction, the Ombudsman referred to the case of Heesom. This Judgement states that there needs to be a balance between accountability for breaking the rules and the need to ensure that the public has the right to local representation, whilst maintaining public confidence in elected members in this respect.
The Investigating Officer respectfully suggested that the Council has a number of other elected members that the public could approach, if Councillor Williams received a sanction, without any prejudice arising for those individuals, should Councillor Williams be unavailable for a period.
The Investigating Officer stated that it is usual practice for the Ombudsman to share decision notices of similar cases with the Standards Committee. She confirmed that decision notices were available but were not exact comparisons and showed a variety of decisions and different sanctions being used. She offered to share those decision with the Committee, before concluding her representations on sanctions. The Chair reported that the Monitoring Officer had already shared copies of similar cases with the Committee.
Following a suggestion that the Committee receive a copy of the Heesom case, it was RESOLVED that the Monitoring Officer provide the Committee with a copy of the report.
RESOLVED to exclude the press and public for Councillor Williams to speak in private session.
Councillor Williams shared his representations in relation to the effect of the case on his personal wellbeing with the Standards Committee.
[Once these representations had been shared, the meeting reconvened with the press and public present].
(d) STANDARDS COMMITTEE’S CONFIRMATON ON WHETHER IT HAS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO COME TO A VIEW ON SANCTION
The Chair sought confirmation from each member of the Standards Committee that they had sufficient information to enable them to reach an informed decision as to whether or not to impose a sanction, and (if appropriate) as to the form of the sanction.
RESOLVED that the Committee has sufficient information to reach an informed decision on sanction.
The Standards Committee retired to another room to consider in private and determine: -
a. Whether to impose a sanction;
b. Having due regard to the Adjudication Panel for Wales’ Sanctions Guidance (where a sanction is to be imposed), what sanction to
impose;
c. When the sanction must take effect, and
d. Any recommendation which the Standards Committee wishes to make to the Council.
[The Standards Committee returned to the main meeting room; The Chair confirmed all present and technical matters were in hand/working].