It was alleged that the Member bullied and intimidated the Complainant whilst she was employed by the Council.
It was originally alleged that, during the Council’s Annual Meeting on 16 May 2023, the Member approached the Complainant, trapped her in the corner of the Council Chamber and shouted at her and the Clerk (“the Former Clerk”), accusing them of corruption.
It was subsequently alleged that the Member frequently visited the Council office and its car park to intimidate the Complainant. It was alleged that the Member took pictures in the car park and parked his car by the staff office window. The Complainant said that, on one occasion, the Member drove his car towards her at speed, before driving out of the car park.
The investigation was extended to include an allegation that the Member had made a physically threatening gesture towards the Complainant outside the Council Chamber on 1 November 2023.
The Ombudsman determined that the following paragraphs of the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) should be considered:
• 4(b) – Members must show respect and consideration for others.
• 4(c) – Members must not use bullying behaviour or harass any person.
• 6(1)(a) – Members must not conduct themselves in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or authority into disrepute.
Information was obtained from the Council, including a copy of the relevant minutes of the meeting. Information was also obtained from the Police. Witnesses, including the Complainant, were interviewed. The Member was also interviewed.
The Ombudsman found that the Member’s conduct during the meeting on 16 March 2023 was suggestive of a breach of paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c) of the Code.
There was insufficient evidence to suggest that the Member’s visits to the Council office and car park amounted to a breach of the Code.
It was found that the Member’s conduct on 1 November 2023 was not sufficiently serious to amount to a breach of the Code.
In considering whether the Member’s conduct at the meeting merited further action, consideration was given to the impact of the Member’s conduct on the Complainant. The Member’s significant experience, as well as his intention and subsequent failure to demonstrate insight into the impact of his behaviour, was also considered.
The Ombudsman also considered the Member’s age, health and the length of time since the event. The Standards Committee’s decision in relation to an allegation of a similar nature that occurred around the same time, in which the Member received a censure, was also noted. The Ombudsman concluded that a further referral to the Standards Committee would likely result in a similar outcome and as such, it was not considered in the public interest to do so.
However, the Ombudsman recommended that the Member should undertake refresher training on the Code within 6 months of the date of the decision. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Member should reflect very carefully on the Code and the Ombudsman’s guidance, to strengthen his understanding of the standards of behaviour expected from elected members. It was determined that, should any further concerns of a similar nature be brought to this office in future, which meet the threshold for investigation by the Ombudsman, this finding will be taken into consideration.