The Ombudsman received a complaint that a Member (“the Member”) of Flintshire County Council (“the Council”) made comments on social media which brought the Council into disrepute as he alleged that another member of the Council had been “bought”.
The Ombudsman’s investigation considered whether the Member’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 4(b), 4(c) and 6(1)(a) of the Code. Information was obtained from the Council. Copies of the comments made on social media and evidence from Facebook were obtained. Witness information was obtained. The Member was interviewed.
The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Member’s comments on social media were made publicly and suggested impropriety and corruption on the part of another member of the Council. The Ombudsman found that the Member’s comments had the potential to seriously damage his and the Council’s reputation and considered that a member of the public would reasonably have regarded the Member’s comment as an allegation of bribery or corruption on the part of a member of the Council. She found that the Member’s comment therefore had the potential to affect the Council’s reputation and the public’s confidence in local democracy and therefore concluded that the Member’s conduct could reasonably be regarded as bringing both the Council and his office as a councillor into disrepute, in breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code.
The Ombudsman also found that the Member’s comment and specific reference to a member of the Council being “bought” went beyond what was reasonable and was a serious allegation to make. She found that, in making such a serious allegation, publicly on Facebook, the Member failed to show the complainant respect and consideration. The Ombudsman found that the Member’s conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Code.
The Ombudsman found that the member of the Council, at whom the comment was aimed, was clear that he did not suffer any lasting anxiety or loss of reputation as a result of the Member’s comments. The Member also apologised publicly and privately to the member of the Council about whom he made the comments. The Ombudsman found that the evidence was not suggestive of bullying and harassment within the meaning of the Code and therefore did not consider there was evidence of a breach of paragraph 4(c) of the Code.
In considering whether further action was required in the public interest, the Ombudsman took into account the events which have taken place since the comment on social media was made. The Member publicly apologised for the comment and the apology was accepted. The member subject to the comments said that he suffered no lasting anxiety or loss of reputation as a result of the Member’s comments and wished to withdraw his complaint. In view of this, the Ombudsman did not consider that it was in the public interest for any further action to be taken. However, the Ombudsman noted that had the Member not publicly apologised and had the member subject to the comments taken a different view on the matter, further action would have been taken. The Member was reminded of his need to take care when posting on social media. The Ombudsman also noted that any complaints of a similar nature be made in the future, this decision will be kept on record and taken into account in any future cases.
The Ombudsman found that under Section 69(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 2000, no action needs to be taken in respect of the matters investigated.