To consider the report.
Minutes:
The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that the decision taken by the sub-committee at the beginning of the meeting to hold the meeting in public, applied to both code of conduct complaints.
The Chair invited the Investigating Officer to present the complaint.
M Dolley, Investigating Officer presented her report in respect of complaints made against Shaftesbury Town Council Councillor Yeo (the Subject Member) by Shaftesbury Town Council Councillor Hollingshead (the Complainant).
The Investigating Officer provided detail of the complaints received which alleged a breach of paragraphs 1 (requirement to treat councillors and others with respect) and paragraph 5 (Disrepute) of the Shaftesbury Town Council Councillor Code of Conduct. The complaints had been investigated in accordance with Dorset Council’s arrangements for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints.
To investigate the complaints, the Investigating Officer had taken into consideration the following evidence:
· The complaints
· Shaftesbury Town Council Code of Conduct
· Video recording of Shaftesbury Town Council meeting of 18 March 2025
· Facebook page maintained by the This is Alfred radio station and the broadcast by This is Alfred of its daily programme on 19 March 2025
· Emails sent to the Subject Member by the Town Clerk at the time
· Interviews with the Complainant and one other member of Shaftesbury Town Council and the Subject Member (statements included within the investigation report)
The complaints were set out in full in the report and the Investigating Officer took the sub-committee through the main points arising.
The complaints related to the conduct of the Subject Member at the Shaftesbury Town Council Full Council meeting on 18 March 2025 and the discussion of agenda item 7 relating to the recruitment of a new town clerk.
The findings section of the report described the relevant part of the meeting, the reporting of the meeting by This is Alfred in its daily broadcast and on its Facebook page, and the email correspondence sent by the town clerk to the Subject Member, which set out the provisions of paragraph 1 of the code and the general principles of councillor conduct stated in the introduction section of the code. Correspondence from the town clerk had urged the Subject Member to undertake code of conduct training.
The Investigating Officer provided an overview of the conclusions set out in the report, which included her comments on the comments made by the Subject Member, both in response to the draft report and on the statement submitted by him in advance of this meeting. The Investigating Officer had concluded that the Subject Member was in breach of paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of the code of conduct and set out her reasoning for this conclusion, including her consideration of the application of Article 10 ECHR. In addition, the Investigating Officer noted that the matter relating to the Subject Member’s failure to undertake training on the code of conduct had not been included in the original complaint but had been added to the investigation in accordance with paragraph G of the Dorset Council arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints.
There were no questions from the sub-committee or from the Independent Person.
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 6.03pm. Members of the sub-committee, the Deputy Monitoring Officer, the Independent Person and the Senior Democratic and Governance Officer left the room in order for the sub-committee to make a decision on breach, in private.
(During the deliberation, the Deputy Monitoring Officer provided the sub-committee with the following information:
A recap of the Code of Conduct wording for Paragraph 1; respect and recap of the main points of LGA guidance on that paragraph, including the examples of respectful and disrespectful conduct and recap of earlier advice about Article 10.
A reminder of the earlier recap of Code of Conduct wording for Paragraph 5; disrepute and recap of the main points of LGA guidance on that paragraph and advice about Article 10.)
The meeting reconvened at 7.47pm.
The Chair provided the decision of the sub-committee:
Shortly in
advance of this hearing the Subject Member confirmed that he would not be
attending the hearing due to work and other personal commitments. The Sub-Committee considered whether to
proceed with the hearing. The Subject Member
had been supplied in advance with details of the hearing, that it could proceed
and reach an outcome in his absence. The Sub-Committee considered advice from
the Deputy Monitoring Officer and concluded to continue with the hearing in the
Subject Members absence as the Subject Member had not provided an acceptable
reason for non-attendance.
Having heard the
views of everyone present and considered the contents of the report and
presentation by the Investigating Officer and views of the Independent Person
and after lengthy deliberation the Sub-committee has made a unanimous decision
about each of the complaints as follows:
1.
The
Subject Member breached the code of conduct by:
a) failing to treat councillors with respect;
b) bringing Shaftesbury Town Council into disrepute.
This is evidenced by comments and behaviour set out in the investigating report
paragraphs 4 and 5 and the recording of 18 March 2025 meeting:
Without requesting permission to speak, interrupted the complainant and
notwithstanding the chair’s request for him to be quiet, he objected to the
proposed recruitment procedure. The Subject Member’s tone was aggressive and
confrontational such that Councillor Williams raised a point of order under
standing orders which states that no person shall obstruct the transaction of
business at a meeting or behave offensively or improperly. The chair requested
the Subject Member moderate his conduct. The Subject Member remained on his
feet talking over the chair and making personal comments directed at Councillor
Williams;
Standing while others are talking and he is not;
Persistently interrupting and talking over other councillors including when
they are raising points of order (which permits interruption) and calling other
councillors improper;
On his phone, huffing and pulling faces while others are speaking;
Alleging improper and/or unlawful process during the last recruitment and
complaining that he was not on the panel;
Alleging the minutes relating to the previous process were fabricated to make
them match the process;
Calling the council a joke and saying this is not the way that council business
should be done;
As a councillor leaves and gives his apology, the Subject Member accuses him of
being extremely unprofessional, that he is supposed to represent the people of Shaftesbury
and that he doesn’t live in Shaftesbury;
The Subject Member was asked to moderate his conduct but did not, leading to
the motion to exclude him which resulted in the meeting being suspended for 10
minutes;
The Subject Member raised his voice and became confrontational when a
councillor raised a point of order;
Calls other councillors highly unprofessional;
The Subject Member described the civility and respect pledge as the “purely voluntary
behaviour thing that you don’t have to sign whatsoever”;
The Subject Member said that the recruitment process was improper and that the
Chair was unfit to be Mayor;
The Subject Member told the chair that he was extremely unprofessional and all
councillors were turning the council into more of a joke than it already is.
These comments and behaviours were made during public meetings, observed
by members of the public present and on social media. Comments were directed at
councillors. The comments did not raise issues for debate and some were not
political but were personal. It is the manner of the Subject Member’s behaviour
and how questions were raised that the sub-committee considers did not comply
with standing orders or the code and could have been raised in a compliant way.
The sub-committee noted the Subject Member’s behaviour was not a one-off
outburst but a continued pattern of behaviour for which he received warnings
from the chair and the meeting was suspended for a time. The Subject Member
repeated interruption of other councillors who were complying with the code and
standing orders, disrupted the transaction of business during the meeting.
The sub-committee is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the alleged
conduct actually occurred and exceeded the threshold for normal expected
political discourse.
The sub-committee is not aware of and the Subject Member has not provided an explanation
for his behaviour aside from referring to his Article 10 right to freedom of
expression.
The sub-committee consider the Subject Member displayed disruptive and bad
behaviour, unreasonable and demeaning behaviour towards other councillors
including Councillors Williams, Dibben and Chase, angry outbursts during the
meeting, ignoring other councillors who were attempting to contribute to
discussion.
The guidance issued by the Local Government Association on its model councillor
code of conduct on which the Shaftesbury Town Council code is closely based,
states that showing respect to others is fundamental to a civil society and
that rude, offensive and disrespectful behaviour lowers the public expectations
and confidence in its elected representatives. It gives examples of both
respectful and disrespectful behaviour.
The sub-committee notes that no apology has been given and no remorse shown.
The sub-committee have considered the Subject Member’s Article 10 rights and consider
that the finding of breach of code while it may infringe Article 10 rights, is
proportionate to the aim of protecting the reputation of the council and other
councillors and their ability to take part in political debate. The
sub-committee were particularly mindful that standing orders allow councillors
to express their opinions, give constructive criticism, challenge and
scrutinise. This can be done in a manner which does not disrupt meetings or
prevent the ability of other councillors to take part.
2.
The
sub-committee found the Subject Member had breached the code by failing to
complete code of conduct training.
The sub-committee note that the Subject Member has, as a matter of fact, not
completed code of conduct training.
The sub-committee also note the volume of communication from Shaftesbury Town
Council town clerk to the Subject Member, making him aware of his duty to
complete code of conduct training, offering and making training available to
him, found at appendix B5 of the investigation report.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer Dorset Council informed the sub-committee of a
previous complaint finding about the Subject Member dating from February 2021
which is in the public domain and which required the Subject Member to complete
code of conduct training within 4 months. As a matter of fact, this was not
completed.
The sub-committee found that his claim not to have been aware of his duty to
complete code of conduct training was entirely uncredible and that he had
wilfully disregarded previous instruction and offer of training.
The sub-committee noted that the Subject Member in his response, alleges
the correct procedure was not followed when adding this allegation about
training to the investigation. It was not part of the original complaint. The
Deputy Monitoring Officer Dorset Council advised the sub-committee that while
the Complaint Process was not technically followed, a decision was taken by the
Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Independent Person to agree to add
the allegation, and the Subject Member has not been prejudiced by this decision
being made late. The Subject Member was
informed. The Subject Member responded
to the allegation at interview and in his responses to his statement, the
report and for this hearing.
(Note - At this point in the meeting, the sub-committee would normally invite representations about aggravating or mitigating factors from the Investigating Officer and the Subject Member. However, as the Subject Member was not in attendance, the sub-committee moved to the matter of sanctions agreed)
The Chair set out the decision on sanctions agreed as follows:
Sanctions
The Sub-committee
decided that the sanctions set out below were an appropriate and proportionate
response to the complaint:
1.
Recommend
to Shaftesbury Town Council a formal censure
2.
Recommend
to Shaftesbury Town Council Town Clerk that the Subject Member be removed from
any outside bodies to which he has been appointed by Shaftesbury Town Council
until he has completed code of conduct training
3.
Instruct
the Dorset Council Monitoring Officer recommend to Shaftesbury Town Council
Town Clerk to arrange code of conduct training for the Subject Member to be
completed within 2 months of the date of this decision.
In accordance with the
Council’s Complaints Process for Councillors there is no right of appeal of
this decision.
This decision will be confirmed in writing and a decision notice posted on the council website.
The Chair closed the meeting at 7.57pm.