The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of the Council had breached the Code of Conduct. At the time of the events complained about, the Complainant was also a Member of the Council. She alleged that, prior to a Council meeting, the Member had shared a copy of a previous Ombudsman investigation report against him with other Councillors and told them he wished for the Council to pay for legal advice in relation to matters linked to that report. The Complainant’s understanding was that, if the legal advice supported the Member’s view, this would be used to challenge the findings of that report. The Complainant said that, when the Member then asked for this money during the Council meeting, she objected on the basis that she did not think it was appropriate for Council funds to be spent on obtaining private legal advice for an individual, and the following day, resigned from her role.
The Complainant also raised a number of additional concerns about how the Member behaved in his role as Chair of the Council. On their own, the additional matters raised by the Complainant were, while potentially concerning, either outside of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman (relating to employment matters, or the Council’s governance), or insufficiently serious to be considered a breach of the Code worth investigating. However, they were taken into consideration as context for the Complainant’s concern that the proposed funding for legal advice was not a one-off incident. While attempts were made to obtain further evidence in relation to that matter, these were unsuccessful. While the meeting was apparently recorded, the recording could not be obtained, there was no detail about the request in the minutes of the relevant meeting, and while there was some evidence that payments were made to the Member around this time, the Council could not provide any detail confirming what these were for. Audit Wales confirmed the Council had not submitted its audits for the relevant years.
Given the lack of substantive evidence available, with no indication that sufficient evidence would become accessible to this office in the near future, it was not considered proportionate to continue the investigation, and it was therefore discontinued.