(TAKE IN EXEMPT REPORT)
The investigator outlined the contents of the report and provided background information to the sub-committee members who each confirmed they had read the report prior to the meeting.
The sub-committee members were shown video clips of the incident which formed part of the alleged incident being complained about (as provided by the Complainant and the person on whose behalf the complaint was made.)
The sub-committee members were given the opportunity to discuss the matter before them and ask any questions.
The Monitoring Officer and the Investigator responded to the various questions/points of clarification raised by the sub- committee members arising from the investigation report and it was noted that all parties had had the opportunity to submit their views for the sub-committee's consideration.
The sub-committee members were advised by the Monitoring Officer of the options available should they conclude that the Code of Conduct had been breached.
Following detailed deliberation, the sub-committee members came to a unanimous decision and
RESOLVED that the sub Committee move back into open session to deliver their decision.
The Chair welcomed the public back and advised that the sub-committee had come to a conclusion having:
· read the investigation report by Richard Lingard, independent investigator
· heard the deputation made by the Complainant
· viewed the video clips provided
· questioned the Investigator on his findings
· been advised of the options open to them if they concluded that a breach of the code of conduct had occurred and
· participated in a full debate about the complaint
The Chair read out the unanimous decision of the sub-committee which
(1) A breach of the code of conduct had occurred in that the subject member had been disrespectful to the person on whose behalf the complaint had been made
(2) Formal training be arranged for all members on the Code of Conduct and how members should conduct themselves in relation to the relaxation of rules around electronic media at meetings to provide clarity for expected conduct in future
(3) A letter be written to the subject member to advise the decision reached by the sub-committee
(4) The subject member be given 28 days to respond to the letter.
(5) A full and formal apology be made by the subject member to the person on whose behalf the complaint was made; such apology to be either made at a face to face meeting or in writing, at the choice of the person on whose behalf the complaint was made.
(6) If the latter person chooses that the apology to be made at a face to face meeting, the subject member will not be permitted to make such apology conditional on the Complainant not attending.
(7) A letter of censure to then be written to the subject member the contents of which to be dependent on the response given
The Complainant thanked the sub-committee for listening to the complaint.
The Chair thanked everyone for attending and in particular thanked Mr Lingard for his clear and comprehensive report.
The Monitoring Officer would carry out the instructions of the sub-committee and would report to the Chair on progress.
The meeting concluded at 4.15pm.