We received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Bridgend Town Council had breached the Code of Conduct.
The complainant was concerned that the Member had: failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in a Council meeting; had taken part in a discussion in the Council meeting when he should not have done given his interests; and that by taking part in the discussion, he had tried to influence a decision on the matter discussed to gain an advantage for his wife.
We found that Council members were asked to ratify draft minutes of a committee meeting. The draft minutes documented, in part, the Member’s wife’s behaviour at the committee meeting. The Member knew that his wife’s behaviour was the subject of a formal complaint to the Ombudsman’s office.
We found that the Member had a personal interest in the matter because Paragraph 10 of the Code states that members must regard themselves as having a personal interest in any business of their authority if a decision upon it might reasonably be regarded as affecting their wellbeing or that of a person with whom they live. Our Guidance also makes clear that a member will have a personal interest if the council business affects a close personal associate of the member, and a close personal associate includes close relatives – in this case the Member’s wife.
We also found that the Member had a prejudicial interest in the matter because we considered that a member of the public with knowledge of the fact that he took part in discussions about ratifying minutes of a meeting which documented his wife’s behaviour, and which behaviour was the subject of a formal investigation to the Ombudsman, would reasonably regard these as so significant that they were likely to prejudice the Member’s judgment of the public interest.
We found, given the Member had a personal and prejudicial interest in the matter, his subsequent actions in failing to disclose his interests and in taking part in discussions, without dispensation from the Authority’s Standards Committee, were suggestive of various breaches of Paragraph 14 of the Code including that he must not seek to influence a decision about matters.
We also found that the Member, in making the suggestions he did regarding amendments to the draft minutes, used his position improperly in an attempt to gain an advantage for his wife, and a disadvantage to the person who had complained about his wife’s behaviour, contrary to paragraph 7(a) of the Code. The Member’s failure to seek advice on the matter from the County’s Monitoring Officer, or to seek dispensation from the Standards Committee in order to make representations, was also suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code because he acted in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute.
We referred our report on our investigation to the Monitoring Officer of Bridgend County Borough Council for consideration by its Standards Committee.
The Standards Committee determined that the Member had breached paragraphs 6(1)(a), 7(a), 11(1), 14(1)(a), 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(e ) of the Code. The Standards Committee decided to suspend the Member for 6 months. The Member may appeal this decision.