Agenda item

Report number DLS57 by the Monitoring Officer.

(Enclosure)

Decision:

(1)  Matters regarding planning can be contentious and lead to strong feelings. In this case, Councillor Cudmore took a very prominent role on behalf of the people of Bourne and displayed robust opposition for a proposal which was also roundly rejected by both the Town Council and the people of Bourne. However, his article on a public website did breach the Code of Conduct in that the words used were directly disrespectful to an officer of South Kesteven District Council in terms of inappropriate language, which in the judgement of the Standards Committee, would lead the public to question the impartiality and integrity of that officer. In our judgement, to accuse South Kesteven District Council Planning and Economic Regeneration Directorate of  “treachery” in a public forum is to bring both South Kesteven District Council and Bourne Town Council into disrepute.

(2)  The issue in this case is the use of words in a public forum by a Councillor who has signed the Code of Conduct. The Standards Committee recognises that Councillor Cudmore accepts that in retrospect his comments were over the top in terms of the precise use of words. We also want to make it very clear that the right of a Councillor to express the views of his Council and those he represents must not be constrained by rules and regulations – it is a matter of balance.

We apply the sanction of censure to Councillor Cudmore and offer him two pieces of advice:

·          He may wish to apologise to those concerned.

·          He may feel it useful to arrange to see the Chairman or Vice-Chairman and Monitoring Officer to talk through the implications of the Code of Conduct informally.

We are grateful for the open way Councillor Cudmore explained his actions today and that he accepts that in hindsight the language he used in the article may not have been best judged.

On a wider note, this committee is very well aware of the lack of understanding of the full implications of the Code of Conduct at Parish Council and Town Council level and the degree of strong feelings which surround planning issues and declarations of interest. However, it is the position of the Committee that the Code is a major contribution to transparency and accountability in those contentious matters, if used properly.

The Committee sympathises that this may have been a “sledge hammer to crack a nut” but we are in the early days of the Code and there are important messages to be conveyed with the intention of raising public confidence in local government.

The Chairman introduced the investigation, the members of the panel and the officers present. He asked members to disclose any interests in the matter; during the course of the meeting, Councillor Wilks, who might have been a member of the Development Control Committee at the time the incidents relating to the investigation occurred, declared that he may have a personal interest. The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that he would not have a prejudicial interest. The Chairman confirmed that the quorum for a hearing was present and reminded members on the procedure to follow. The Investigator and Councillor Cudmore were asked if there was any reason that they required the press and public to be excluded from the meeting. Both confirmed that they did not require the press or public to be excluded.

The Monitoring Officer explained that this investigation had been referred for local determination under Section 66 of the Local Government Act 2000 and he had been appointed Investigator. He then presented his report. He detailed the allegation, the relevant section of the Code of Conduct, the evidence obtained and his conclusions. Exhibits had been circulated. The allegation was that Councillor Cudmore had brought Bourne Town Council into disrepute and had treated with disrespect, an officer of South Kesteven District Council by the writing of an article posted on a local Internet forum. The article was included in the exhibits. The Investigator had concluded that there was a potential breach of rules 2(b) and 4 of the Code of Conduct.

In presenting his report, the Investigator asked that it be recorded that Councillor Cudmore had been unable to attend an interview with him due to an illness and the Investigator was satisfied that this had been genuine reason for not attending. The decision of the Planning Inquiry – the subject of Councillor Cudmore’s article – had only recently been made by the Planning Inspectorate.

Councillor Cudmore was invited to ask the Investigator questions on matters of fact presented in his report. A spelling mistake which altered the meaning of the sentence at paragraph 6.6 was indicated by the Councillor. He then drew on a recent national case concerning the Mayor of London, suggesting that for himself in this investigation, the Code of Conduct did not apply because he had been acting as a private individual. He stated that there was no evidence that Bourne Town Council had been brought into disrepute and there was therefore no case against him.

The Chairman asked Councillor Cudmore if he was satisfied that the facts presented in the Investigator’s report were accurate. He replied that he had no particular dispute about the facts. The panel asked Councillor Cudmore to confirm whether or not he had asked the district council before publication of the article about the facts of the public enquiry. He replied that the question was irrelevant because he was acting in his private capacity. He was asked if the officer mentioned in his article had been present at the Planning Inquiry. He replied that this was also irrelevant because he was the head of the department and therefore responsible.

Councillor Cudmore insisted that his language reflected the facts as presented to the Public Inquiry and he confirmed that in the article, he presented himself in his private capacity.

The panel asked Councillor Cudmore on specific use of his language in the article. Councillor Cudmore did not agree that the words were inappropriate, inaccurate or disrespectful. He stated that when using the forum, he had only criticised the actions and policies of the Council, not an individual. He had not questioned the manner in which an officer has implemented a policy. The people who used the forum were informed of the facts of the Public Inquiry and it could not be construed from the article that the Inquiry had not been independent.  The Councillor was asked specifically about the phrase: “…the treachery of SKDC…”,  It was suggested to him that it could easily be interpreted by a member of the public that the integrity of SKDC was being challenged. Councillor Cudmore stated that he had never questioned the professional integrity or expertise of SKDC officers and that nothing he had contributed on the forum could be interpreted in that way.

Councillor Cudmore, upon further questioning, confirmed that he had been a councillor for about five years and that few local people were unaware that he was an elected member. He was sure, however, that it was well known that his articles on the Internet forum were written in his private capacity. The intention in writing the article had been straight reporting in response to a query on the forum.

Councillor Cudmore called Councillor Trevor Holmes, another member of Bourne Town Council, as a witness. Councillor Holmes explained to the panel that some months prior to this article appearing on the website, Councillor Cudmore had on the same website, published an article which he considered to be objectionable in relation to comments about Jehovah’s witnesses. Advice was sought from the Monitoring Officer, who had advised that the fact that the article had appeared as written by “Guy Cudmore”, it was not possible to refer the author to the Standards Board. 

The panel asked the Monitoring Officer to comment. He confirmed that the case concerning the Mayor of London did confirm that there are certain circumstances when a councillor can act in a private capacity in the previous situation relating to Councillor Cudmore, the situation was border line, but in the article relating to this investigation, it was clear that Bourne Town Council, and Councillor Cudmore as a member of that body, was involved in the subject of the article. He reserved the right to give further clarification later in the meeting.

There were no questions put to the witness.

Councillor Cudmore continued his case. He stated that the Code of Conduct did not impinge his freedom of speech and that the complaint should have used other methods to bring his objection to light as he considered this investigation a “sledge hammer to crack a nut.” He then suggested that his wording may not have been appropriate and that it could have been dealt with in an informal manner.

Two emails had been received from members of the public concerning the investigation. These were circulated and noted. Councillor Cudmore was asked to clarify certain points raised in these emails and he responded accordingly. 

The Monitoring Officer then explained in further detail the issues concerning a member’s private life. He acknowledged it to be a difficult area. In his opinion, the subject of the article under investigation was a genuine matter of business for Bourne Town Council. The Town Council had made a formal submission and were represented at the Inquiry, to which the article relates. This was therefore distinct from private business. Furthermore, in terms of planning matters, the law now states that there are very few instances in which a member can act in a private capacity in relation to a planning matter.

In response, Councillor Cudmore suggested that this was not clear enough in the Code. He was aware of constraints when dealing with planning matters but not those suggested by the Monitoring Officer. He suggested that there be wider communication of the implications of the Code.

There were no further comments and the panel was satisfied that they had sufficient information to determine the investigation.

The press, public, investigator, witness and Councillor left the room. Considering the facts presented to them, the relevant sections of the code of conduct and Councillor Cudmore’s comments, the Panel concluded that there had been a breach of rules 2(b) and 4 of the Code of Conduct.

The press, public, investigator, witness and Councillor returned to the meeting and were informed of the Panel’s decision, as noted above.