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:

On 10 March 2011 the Referrals Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee referred an allegation about Councillor Andy Stamp to the Deputy 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 Deputy 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), 3(2)(b) and 6(a) 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

 

The allegation was that Councillor Andy Stamp breached the Member’s Code of Conduct when Councillor Stamp reported and re-reported the complaints that he made to Medway Council’s Standards Committee concerning the behaviour of two other councillors (DU/MO/124 and 125).  The complaint related to the issuing of leaflets and conducting an email campaign against other councillors.

 

The Referrals Sub-Committee identified paragraphs 3(1), 3(2)(b) and 6(a) of the Members’ Code of Conduct as potentially relevant in relation to the alleged conduct:

·              Paragraph 3(1) of the Code:

         You must treat others with respect.

·              Paragraph 3(2)(b) of the Code:

         You must not bully any person.

·              Paragraph 6(a) of the Code:

         You must not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage.

1.3       The consideration stage of the Hearing Sub-Committee:

 

A consideration meeting of the Hearings Sub-Committee considered the report of the Investigating Officer on 23 January 2012.  The Hearing Sub-Committee considered the Investigating Officer’s report which found that there had not been a breach of paragraphs 3(2)(b) and 6(a) of the Members’ Code of Conduct.  However, the Investigating Officer did find a breach of paragraph 3(1) of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Hearings Sub-Committee was therefore required to determine whether to refer the matter to a hearing or request that the First Tier Tribunal determine the matter. 

 

The Hearings Sub-Committee, under Regulation 17 of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008, referred the matter to a hearing

 

Section 2: Preliminary procedural issues

 

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

 

The Chairman of the Hearings Sub-Committee summarised the process of the meeting, which would be as follows: -

·        Firstly the sub-committee would deal with any issues regarding procedure;

·        It would then deal with disagreements of finding of facts;

·        It would then go on to consider whether Councillor Stamp had failed to follow the Members’ Code of Conduct, including listening to representations from Councillor Stamp, his representative Mr Burt and the Independent Investigator;

·        If the sub-committee decided that Councillor Stamp had failed to follow the code it would then listen to representations from the parties as to whether or not a penalty should be set and if so, what form it should take;

 

The Chairman explained that the sub-committee would retire to another room to make its decision at each stage of the process. 

 

In response to a question from Mr Burt the Chairman confirmed that the sub-committee was following the procedure set out at Annex 13 to the report.

Section 3: Findings of fact

 

3.1             Summary of submission from Councillor Stamp and Mr Burt, Councillor Stamp’s representative

3.1.1       In relation to paragraph 5.4 of the Investigating Officer’s report Mr Burt explained that Councillor Stamp’s view which was that the first two press articles, at pages 27 and 28 of the agenda, contained information which could have been obtained from the decision notice published on the Council’s website.  However, he felt the third press article attached at page 29 did contain information which could only have been from a leaked copy of the confidential Investigating Officer’s report, although this was conjecture on his part.

 

3.1.2       He added that the statement in 5.4 which states; “in my view it is fair to assume that it did not emanate from the subject members in this case”, in his view, made a subliminal suggestion that this information came from Councillor Stamp but that, as there was no evidence to substantiate this, it could not be considered as fact.

 

3.1.3       Councillor Stamp added that of the three articles, the only one that appeared to contain information additional to what was available on the Council’s website was the third article at page 29 and he expressed the view that it would not have been in his interest to have leaked the information.

 

3.1.4       In relation to paragraph 5.5 of the Investigating Officer’s report, Mr Burt referred to the quote “I have been shocked and disgusted by the actions of two Liberal Democrat Councillors” taken from a letter sent to local residents from Councillor Stamp and the comment made about this by the Investigating Officer, which stated, “it appears to pre-determine the result and implies guilt”.  Mr Burt explained that the letter was an explanation to constituents of the reasons why Councillor Stamp left the Liberal Democrat Party and that by reporting the issue to the Standards Committee it demonstrated that Councillor Stamp believed the incident to have occurred.  He did consider this to be pre-determining and felt that the comment from the Independent Investigator in paragraph 5.5 of his report was a subjective observation and an incorrect conclusion.  In addition, Mr Burt conveyed the view that the letter did not elaborate on the issue and was a sincere attempt to clarify the situation of his departure from the Liberal Democrats to Councillor Stamp’s constituents.

 

3.1.5       Councillor Stamp added that he included in the letter a commitment to residents to keep them updated on the outcome of the investigation.  He had felt under pressure to explain why he had left the Liberal Democrat Party to local residents.  Councillor Stamp acknowledged that the way he had phrased the letter may not have been perfect and that if the situation happened again he would react differently.  He also drew the sub-committee’s attention to other copies of press coverage attached at Annexes 9-12 to the agenda, which demonstrated that Councillor Stamp was unavailable to comment to the press while the investigation was taking place.

 

3.1.6       Additionally, Mr Burt disputed the comment at paragraph 5.5 of the Investigating Officer’s report, which stated, “despite the fact that the two Councillors concerned had already been exonerated by an internal Lib/Dem enquiry, which was another factor not mentioned in the leaflet”.  He felt the statement was a distortion of the facts, as Councillor Stamp had never received a copy of the internal Liberal Democrat enquiry report and therefore was unable to mention it in his letter to constituents.

 

3.1.7       The Deputy Monitoring Officer then clarified with Councillor Stamp and Mr Burt as to whether there were any other findings of fact that they wished to dispute.  Other aspects of the report were raised but the Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that these were disputes relating to the Investigating Officer’s inferences and opinions and not findings of fact.

 

3.2            Summary of submission by the Investigating Officer

 

3.2.1       In response Mr Milne confirmed that, as he was aware, the only information relating to case DU/MO/124 and 125 that was publicly available on the Council’s website was the decision notices, one of which was attached at page 21 of the agenda.  He felt that the press articles at page 27 and 28 of the agenda, which were published in January 2011, contained, in his view, more information than what was available on the Council’s website.  He was not however suggesting who might have provided additional information to the press.  In relation to the later press article at page 29 of the agenda, it was clear that information had been leaked to the press, however, he did not consider it to be part of the reporting and re-reporting that was the basis of this complaint and therefore did not consider it relevant in this case.

 

3.2.2       Mr Milne added that it is within the remit of the Independent Investigating Officer’s role to formulate views and opinions to come to a conclusion about whether or not a subject member has breached the Members’ Code of Conduct, which is what he had done at paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5.

 

3.2.3       Furthermore, Mr Milne added that in his view the comment in the letter entitled; ‘a message from Councillor Andy Stamp’, which stated, “I have been shocked and disgusted by the action of two Liberal Democrat Councillors” pre-determined the case and implied guilt, despite an investigation by the Standards Committee taking place at the time of this letter being circulated.

 

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

 

3.3.1       The sub-committee then withdrew from the meeting to consider the findings of fact.  In returning to the meeting the Chairman announced the sub-committee’s decision in relation to the findings of fact.

 

3.3.2       The committee acknowledged that the Investigating Officer is entitled to make observations and express opinions in his report but that the sub-committee would only consider facts at this stage.

 

3.3.3       The committee agreed with the facts set out in the Investigating Officer’s report, in particular the following:

 

3.3.3.1      In September 2010, Councillor Stamp made a complaint against two other Councillors, Mrs Ruparel and Mrs Sutton.  That complaint was investigated through the Council’s standards process and in due course the Council’s Hearings Sub-Committee found that there had been no breaches of the Code of Conduct on the part of Councillors Ruparel and Sutton.

3.3.3.2      Prior the Hearings Sub-Committee making that determination, Councillor Stamp issued a letter entitled “A Message from Councillor Andy Stamp” to residents within his ward (originally issued in October 2010).  In that letter Councillor Stamp stated “I have been shocked and disgusted by the actions of two Liberal Democrat Councillors”.  The letter then goes on to state that Councillor Stamp had reported the two members to the Standards Board.

3.3.3.3      While Councillor Stamp’s letter does not name the two Councillors, from the end of October 2010 a summary of the complaints against Councillor Ruparel and Councillor Sutton would have been public, as the Standards Committee assessment decision notice was published at the end of October 2010 and placed on the Council’s website.

3.3.3.4      In January 2011, again prior to the Hearings Sub-Committee having made a determination in respect of the complaint against the two Councillors, Councillor Stamp held a press conference and spoke about the complaint to the Standards Committee, which press conference was then reported in the local press.

 

3.3.4       The committee acknowledged that the matters set out in paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of the Investigating Officer’s report were inferences and opinions which the Investigating Officer had drawn from the facts, rather than fact themselves.  The committee therefore did not find there to be any facts within those paragraphs and stated that it would determine whether the inferences in these paragraphs were correct in deciding whether the Members’ Code of Conduct had been breached.

 

Section 4: Decision on whether the Code was breached

 

4.1             Summary of submission by Mr Burt, on behalf of Councillor Stamp

 

4.1.1       Mr Burt referred to a comment in the Independent Investigator’s report which stated; “it is submitted that on the balance of probability the evidence indicates that a breach of the Code of Conduct took place for the reasons specified in the evidence section”.  Mr Burt stated that he believed the only facts were the letter from Councillor Stamp to his constituents at Appendix (e) of Annex 1 and that Councillor Stamp held a press conference and he did not believe that these facts proved a breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

 

4.1.2       Mr Burt referred to a comment by the Independent Investigator at Annex 4 of the agenda, which stated; “feel it is essential that any such document is balanced in approach, particularly when dealing with matters which are the subject of an ongoing Standards investigation”.  Mr Burt explained that Councillor Stamp would have been in no position to include information about the internal Liberal Democrat enquiry as he has never been formally informed of the outcome.  He referred to copies of press coverage at Annex 9 – 12 of the agenda, which he stated provided an indication of the pressures Councillor Stamp was under to address the issues being raised by the blogs and online news articles.

 

4.1.3       Furthermore, Mr Burt added that there was a need for politicians to be honest and transparent in providing constituents with explanations when there is a change in position.  The letter from Councillor Stamp to his constituents was an attempt to do this with the minimum of information.

 

4.1.4       Mr Burt added that there was no control over what the press publicise in articles and that there was no evidence to demonstrate where they had obtained information for any of the articles within the agenda.

 

4.2             Summary of submission by the Investigating Officer

 

4.2.1       Mr Milne explained that the crux of the case was the reporting and re-reporting of another Standards case and whether or not it should be considered disrespectful when reading what was contained in the letter from Councillor Stamp to his constituents.  In Mr Milne’s view, the letter did contain information which was disrespectful to two subject members of a Standards Committee investigation taking place at the time.

 

4.2.2       Mr Milne also explained that balance of probabilities was used in such cases and that the Committee must determine matters on the balance of probabilities.

 

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 Stamp breached 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 made this finding as it considered that the “message from Councillor Andy Stamp” contained at page 23 of the agenda, which was issued prior to the Standards Committee decision in to the complaints made against ex-Councillors Ruparel and Sutton, containing wording, which, given that no decision had been made by the Standards Committee, was disrespectful.

 

Section 5:Sanction

 

5.1             Summary of submission by the Investigating Officer

 

5.1.1       Mr Milne explained that in his view a less serious penalty would be suitable.  He suggested that an appropriate sanction would be for Councillor Stamp to provide a written apology to the two ex-Councillors involved, Mrs Ruparel and Mrs Sutton.

 

5.1.2       Mr Milne also suggested that the sub-committee consider censuring Councillor Stamp for bringing the standards procedure into disrepute.

5.2             Summary of submission by Mr Burt, on behalf of Councillor Stamp

 

5.2.1       Mr Burt explained that he considered the actual offence to not have been meant to disrespect any person and suggested that no penalty should be given although at most, a possible sanction could be censure.  He suggested that there had been fault on both sides with this issue and that Councillor Stamp had needed to explain his reasons for leaving the Liberal Democrats to his constituents.

 

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

 

5.3.1       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 Stamp was under some pressure at the time of writing the letter entitled, ‘a message from Councillor Andy Stamp’.

 

·        That Councillor Stamp understood that his choice of words was unfortunate.

 

5.3.2       The Hearings Sub-Committee therefore:

 

·        Censured Councillor Stamp for his actions;

 

·        Required Councillor Stamp to write an apology, in a form specified by the Standards Committee, to Mrs Ruparel and Mrs Sutton, regarding the issuing of that message prior to a decision having been made in relation to the complaints against them;

 

·        With a view to promoting high standards of conduct among Members, recommended that the censure be read out at full Council.

 

 

 

 

Chairman:

 

Date:

 

 

 

Teri Reynolds, Democratic Services officer

 

Telephone: 01634 332104

Email: democratic.services@medway.gov.uk