Minutes:
Having assumed the role of Chair, Councillor Trail
outlined the procedure and advised that his first task would be to establish
whether members of the Review Panel had sufficient information before them to
discuss and determine the subject of the complaint. The Panel agreed that they had sufficient
information to determine the complaint referral before them.
It was noted that Seil
and Easdale Community Council had referred the
complaint to the Review Panel after they had made a determination that the
subject of the complaint had breached the Code of Conduct for Community
Councillors. The Community Council had
made a finding that there were 5 aspects of the Code which had been breached
and had agreed that a referral be made to the Panel to determine the most
appropriate sanction. The Panel agreed
in the first instance to make a determination on whether the decision of the
Community Council was appropriate and thereafter to determine what level of
sanction be applied. The Chair invited
the Panel to consider the terms of the complaint referral and after discussion
the Panel agreed to consider the 5 aspects of the referral in turn and reached
the following decisions and reasons.
Decision
Having
given consideration to the information before them, the Panel agreed that in
writing letters on a personal planning matter, and making mention to his
position as a Community Councillor, the member did in fact breach the Code of
Conduct, by failing to separate his role as a Community Councillor with that of
a private individual. However, it was
noted that the member had only been a Community Councillor for a short period
of time and may be lacking in essential governance training.
Decision
– Upheld
The
Panel, having already agreed that the member had failed to separate his role as
a Community Councillor with that of a private individual, agreed that the
member had been irresponsible and negligent of his duties as a Community
Councillor and as such agreed to uphold this section of the complaint.
Decision
- Upheld
The Panel agreed that there was no evidence to
support this breach. They felt that the
member, who was pursuing a private planning matter, did not intend to represent
the views of the Community Council, and as such the Panel did not support the
Community Council in this view.
Decision – Not upheld
The Panel noted that in pursuing his planning
application, the member may have encouraged opinions to be changed, but that he
was open and transparent in doing so.
They felt that they could not support the Community Council in their
view that the member had acted dishonestly.
Decision – Not upheld
Having
noted the information provided, the Panel agreed that the member was not in
breach of the Code in relation to leadership, as he was addressing a personal
interest. As a relatively inexperienced
Community Councillor, they did not believe that the member would have had the
experience required to lead more experienced members of the Community Council
in a matter of this nature.
Decision
– Not upheld
The Panel, having determined that they upheld 2 of
the breaches of the Code of Conduct, agreed to impose sanction 13.5.2, to issue
a formal written warning to the member in question, as set out in the Scheme of
Establishment for Community Councils.
The written warning is to include a 6 month monitoring period. The Panel noted that the subject of the
complaint was a new member of the Community Council and recognised the need for
appropriate training to be undertaken.
They were also of the view that the Community Council as a whole would
benefit from refresher training, particularly in relation to the management of
meetings, with a focus on the recording of information. They made the following recommendation:-
That the Community Council engage with the
Community Council Liaison Officer to discuss appropriate refresher governance
training with particular emphasis on the management of meetings and the
recording of information.
(Reference:
Report by Committee Manager, dated 29 March 2021, and tabled
information, dated 28 January 2021, submitted)
Supporting documents: