Agenda item - Investigation of a Complaint Against a Councillor

Agenda item

Investigation of a Complaint Against a Councillor

To consider the complaint investigation report prepared on behalf of the Monitoring Officer. (Report No: 247 on the Part 1 Agenda also refers.)

 

The Committee is asked to consider what, if any, further action that they wish to take following the information provided in the report.

Minutes:

At this stage Councillor Waterhouse left the meeting and did not take part in the discussion or decision.

 

Councillor Ibrahim was appointed Chair in his place. 

 

The Committee received the report of the Investigating Officer presenting the outcome of an investigation into a complaint against a councillor relating to an alleged breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct.  This included representations from the complainants and the councillor complained against.

 

NOTED

 

1.               The hearing was conducted in accordance with the hearings procedure adopted by the Committee.

2.               The presentation of the Investigating Officer’s report.

3.               The findings within the independent investigation undertaken by Jill Bayley, Principal Lawyer, on behalf of the Monitoring Officer into the complaint. This was presented by Jill Bayley.

4.               The questions put forward by members and the responses from Jill Bayley.

5.               The comments of Christine Chamberlain, the Independent Person, on the findings arising from the Independent Investigation.

 

John Austin, Jill Bayley and Christine Chamberlain, left the meeting at this point and took no part in the committee’s deliberations.

 

Asmat Hussain, Assistant Director Legal Services, advised members of relevant case law in this area. 

 

Members considered all the available information, including the investigating officer’s report, the independent person’s comments, case law, representations from the complainant and the councillor.

 

AGREED based on the outcomes of the investigation and the comments made at the meeting:

 

1.               That the Councillor had been acting in his capacity as a councillor when he placed the images and wrote the comments provided as images 6, 13,15, 16, 17 on his facebook page. 

 

The Committee felt that as a councillor he should have been aware that the issues under discussion were politically sensitive, and that people would have known that he was a councillor and would have perceived him to be acting within his role as a councillor.  Members felt that it was not possible to differentiate between his views in a private capacity and his activities in his role as a councillor. 

 

2.               That the councillor was representing the Council when he made the comments provided as images 6, 13, 15, 16 and 17 on his facebook page.   For the reasons set out in 1 above. 

 

3.               In respect of (1) and (2) above that the Councillor was in breach of paragraphs 6, 7, 8.8 and 12(1) and 12 (2) of the Council’s Member Code of Conduct.

 

Paragraph 6 “you have a duty to uphold the law, including the general law against discrimination and requirements of the Localism Act and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in you”.

 

Paragraph 7: ‘You have an overriding duty to act in the interests of the London Borough of Enfield’s area as a whole, but also have a particular duty to represent the views of the residents of your ward.’

 

Paragraph 8.8 under the heading ‘Respect for Others’: ‘You should promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person, and by treating people with respect, regardless of their race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability.’

 

Paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct states as follows: ‘You shall observe the following rules when acting as a Member or co-opted Member of the Authority:

 

‘(1) Treat others with respect and courtesy.

‘(2) You must not -

 

‘(a) Do anything which may cause your authority to breach any of its equality duties (in particular as set out in the Equality Act 2010)…’

 

4.               The following reasons provided by the Committee in relation to the decision in (3) above: 

 

a.   The Committee agreed with the Investigating Officer’s conclusion that Councillor Joannides actions fell short of the standard required by the code in the paragraphs listed above by placing the images 13.15, 16 and 17 on his facebook account, images where he is making offensive remarks (including likes) about particular groups of people. 

 

b.   He had failed to act in accordance with the public trust in him, failed to act in the interests of the London Borough of Enfield and failed to treat others with respect and courtesy, failed to treat people with respect regardless of their race and religion and failed to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it where those protected characteristics were race and religion or belief. 

 

c.   The use of the insulting words in images 16 and 17, breached Paragraph 12 (1), Paragraph 12 (2) and Paragraph 8.8. 

 

d.   Image 13 with the post beneath the picture was a breach of Paragraph 6, 8.8, 12 (1), 12 (2) on the basis that it contravenes the Council’s equality duties to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it”.  The protected characteristic was “religion or belief”

 

e.   Image 15, with the like and post were in clear breach of the code of conduct (Para 6, 7, 8.8, 12(1) and 12 (2)). 

 

f.    The Committee also felt that the Councillor was responsible for the offensive comments in image 6 and that these comments also breached Para 6, 7, 8.8, 12(1) and 12 (2) of the Code of Conduct. 

 

5.               To note that the Investigator considered that there was insufficient evidence to make any findings on images numbered 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10 and 11. 

 

6.               In terms of sanctions arising from the breaches of the code: 

 

a.     That the findings of the outcome of the hearing would be released to the local media. Details would be sent to the media after the local elections, due to purdah restrictions.  

 

b.     That a letter would be sent to the Leader of the Conservative Group, the group he was a member of at the time of the incident, recommending that Councillor Joannides be removed from the relevant meetings of the Authority of which he was a member. 

 

Councillor Rye abstained from the decision.