Agenda item

This report brings before the Sub-Committee, the Investigating Officer’s report into an allegation against a Councillor. 

Section 1: Background

 

1.1       The referral from the Referrals Sub-Committee:

 

1.1.1   On 20 January 2010 the Referrals Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee referred an allegation about Councillor Jane Chitty to the Monitoring Officer for investigation, which is set out in paragraph 1.2. The Referrals Sub-Committee requested that the allegation be referred for investigation.  The Monitoring Officer appointed an independent person to undertake the investigation on her behalf, who prepared a report of his findings.  The Investigator’s report concerns a potential breach of paragraphs 3(1) and 3(2)(b) of the Members’ Code of Conduct. The Investigator referred his report to the Hearings Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee for consideration in accordance with the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008.

 

1.2       The allegation

 

1.2.1   The allegation was that Councillor Jane Chitty breached paragraph 3(1) and 3(2)(b) of the Member’s Code of Conduct on 9 December 2009 when she addressed an employee in an aggressive and angry way and gesticulated at an employee near the reception area of the Council Offices in Gun Wharf, Chatham.

 

1.2.2            Paragraph 3(1): “You must treat others with respect”;

Paragraph 3(2)(b): “You must not bully any person”.

 

1.3       The consideration stage of the Hearing Sub-Committee:

 

1.3.1   A consideration meeting of the Hearings Sub-Committee considered the report of the Investigating Officer on 21 March 2011.  The Hearing Sub-Committee agreed that Councillor Chitty was not in breach of paragraph 3(2)(b) of the Code of Conduct.

 

1.3.2   The Hearing Sub-Committee accepted the finding that Councillor Chitty was in breach of paragraph 3(1) of the Code of Conduct and decided that the matter should be considered at a hearing under Regulation 18 of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008.

 

Section 2: Preliminary procedural issues

 

2.1       The Hearing Sub-Committee’s decision on procedural issues was as follows:

 

2.1.1   The Sub-Committee were informed, that as part of the pre-hearing process Councillor Jane Chitty had been written to proposing the date for this meeting, outlining the hearing procedure, her rights and asking her for a response to the questions in the Standards for England guidance relating to attendance at the hearing and representation, findings of fact, evidence at the hearing, witnesses, the hearing being held in private and keeping documentation private.

 

2.2.2   The Sub-Committee were informed that Councillor Jane Chitty had not responded to the questions but had confirmed that she would attend the hearing.

 

Section 3: Findings of fact

 

3.1            Summary of submission by the Investigating Officer

3.1.1   Mr Milne explained that his findings of fact were set out in his report and confirmed his findings of no breach of paragraph 3(2)(b) of the code in relation to bullying and a breach of paragraph 3(1) of the code in relation to treating others with respect.

 

3.2            Summary of submission from Councillor Chitty

 

3.2.1            Councillor Chitty confirmed that she was happy with the findings of the report apart from the time of the incident which she recalled to take place at an earlier time of between 2pm and 3pm.  She felt this was an important point as if the incident had occurred later in the day there would have been a number of additional witnesses as she was with officers from 4:45pm until the evening and reception would have been busier at the end of the day.

 

3.2.2            Councillor Chitty also confirmed that the delay in the progression of the investigation when the previous Investigating Officer was carrying it out had not been caused by herself as she had been very cooperative and had email correspondence to demonstrate this.

 

3.3            Summary of submission from Laura Steward

 

3.3.1   Miss Steward explained that her concerns in relation to the findings of the Investigating Officer’s report had been detailed in a letter, which was attached to the agenda for the meeting.  Miss Steward then highlighted the following points: -

·        That she felt there was a great deal of similarity between her statement and that of the witness.

·        That both her and the witness recall the incident occurring at the end of the day.

·        That she found the Investigating Officer’s comment ‘de minimus’ in his report hurtful as for her the incident had been a very unpleasant experience, which had left her feeling very upset and uncomfortable in the presence of Councillor Chitty.

 

3.4       After considering the submissions of the parties the Hearings Sub-Committee findings of fact were:

 

3.4.1   That an incident took place between Councillor Chitty and Miss Steward on 9 December 2009 in the upper reception area of Gun Wharf.

 

3.4.2   That Councillor Chitty was aggressive and unpleasant to Miss Steward, who was left very upset by the incident.

 

3.4.3   That the incident was more likely to have occurred at the end of the day, but regardless it was felt that this was not a material fact.

 

3.4.4   That the incident was independently witnessed, which corroborated Miss Steward’s account of the incident.

 

3.4.5   That there were no other witnesses to the incident.

 

3.4.6   That there were not significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s statement and that of the witness.

 

Section 4: Decision on whether the Code was breached

 

4.1            Summary of submission by Councillor Chitty

 

4.1.1            Councillor Chitty explained that she had earned the respect of officers and the public through her dedication and commitment to her work as Portfolio Holder for Strategic Development and Economic Growth.  Her work in this role had been instrumental in encouraging inward investment and resulted in her having substantial responsibility.

 

4.1.2            Councillor Chitty confirmed that she did not disagree with the comments she had said which were reported to the Sub-Committee.  She did however disagree with the nature in which it was alleged that she had said the words.

 

4.1.3            Councillor Chitty explained that she had been under a great deal of pressure, particularly approximately 2-3 months prior to the incident as she felt she was being victimised by the Labour Group.  There had been a recent complaint lodged against her by the Labour Group for alleged electoral fraud, which she was later cleared of, and there had been some incidents with members of the public and members of the labour group in relation to some consultations on possible school closures, which had been very unpleasant and intimidating.  This had involved being sneered at, her personal space being invaded and being called names.

 

4.1.4            Councillor Chitty explained that when the incident had occurred, Miss Steward had walked directly across Councillor Chitty, causing her to stop.  She claimed that Miss Steward then smiled at her.  This had caused her to say something similar to the following to Miss Steward; “don’t smile at me.  If you see me, walk straight past me”.  Councillor Chitty did not feel she had shouted these words.  She admitted she had used her hands in an expressive way, as she always does when speaking, but was not gesticulating.  She confirmed that she did not feel she had over-reacted and stated that Miss Steward had not acknowledged her for some time prior to the incident.

 

4.1.5            Councillor Chitty did not consider it possible for the witness to have viewed or heard this from the direction in which she had been travelling from.

 

4.1.6            Councillor Chitty felt that Miss Steward could not be disassociated from the Labour Group Members and the pressure they had been putting on her as she had been working for the Labour Group as their political assistant at the time of the incident.  She accepted what was had said but did not concede to being aggressive.

 

4.1.7            Councillor Chitty explained that the complaint had had a profound impact on her working day at the Council.  She now avoided the restaurant or the smoking areas where people congregate and she felt her engagement skills had been tainted. 

 

4.2            Summary of submission by the Investigating Officer

 

4.2.1   Mr Milne explained that in his view, if Councillor Chitty were to be found in breach then a less serious penalty would be suitable.

 

4.3       The Hearings Sub-Committee’s decision on whether or not there had been a breach of the Code.

 

4.3.1   The Hearings Sub-Committee reached the following decision after considering the submissions of the parties:

 

4.3.2   That Councillor Jane Chitty was in breach of paragraph 3(1) of the Code of Conduct of Medway Council, which states, “you must treat others with respect”.

 

4.3.3   The Hearing Sub-Committee’s reason for this decision was that having considered the evidence the Sub-Committee found that Councillor Chitty was rude and aggressive to a member of staff and left her very upset.

 

Section 5:Sanction

 

5.1       The Hearings Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee’s decision on what sanction, if any, ought to be imposed:

 

5.1.1   The Hearings Sub-Committee reached its decision after considering the written evidence and submissions of the parties and taking into account the following:

·        That Councillor Chitty had not apologised for her conduct and did not appear to accept she was in fault;

·        That the Sub-Committee did not consider the incident to be ‘de minimus’;

·        That the Sub-Committee did not consider it acceptable for Councillors to be rude towards staff or treat staff with disrespect.

 

5.1.2   The Hearings Sub-Committee therefore decided that Councillor Chitty should send a letter of apology to Miss Steward that apologised for her actions, that acknowledged the offence and distress that she had caused Miss Steward and that her behaviour was unacceptable.  This letter should be sent within seven days and copied to the Chairman of the Standards Committee.