Case studies

Examples of decisions the Standards Commission has made can be found below.

RESPECT AND COURTESY

What happened?
The councillor made offensive comments to two members of the public in social media posts. In an email exchange regarding the social media posts, the councillor also made abusive and discriminatory remarks towards a council officer.

What did the Standards Commission decide?
The Standards Commission accepted the councillor was of the view that both members of the public had expressed transphobic views. It considered, however, that even if this was a genuinely held belief, it did not mean that the councillor was were entitled to direct profanities and derogatory terms towards them in a public forum.

The Standards Commission considered that the use of abusive terms in public about members of the public, by someone in a position of authority and responsibility, was disrespectful. The Standards Commission noted that even if the councillor had felt compelled to comment, they could have expressed their views and opinions, without resorting to profanities and personal abuse. It further found that the councillor’s remarks towards the council officer were entirely inappropriate and disrespectful and were based, at least in part, on assumptions about the officer’s personal characteristics, including his race, gender identity and sexual orientation. The Standards Commission found, therefore, that the councillor had breached the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

The Standards Commission decided a suspension was the appropriate sanction. This was to:

• protect members of the public from offensive and demeaning comments that went well beyond what might be considered normal or even acceptable;
• help ensure a minimum standard of public debate;
• ensure effective working relations between councillors and officers that enable a council to operate effectively; and
• allow officers to work in an environment where they are not subjected to unwarranted attacks and personal abuse.

CONFIDENTIALITY

What happened?
A councillor posted sensitive information about his Council’s proposals for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic on social media. This included information about a potential travel ban and proposals to handle a large number of burials.

What did the Standards Commission decide?
The Standards Commission was satisfied that the councillor was given the information he subsequently posted in a private briefing for elected members and, as such, it should have been evident that the information received was confidential and was not to be disclosed. The Standards Commission found that there were legitimate reasons why the Council wished to keep the information confidential at the time, which included the fact that the proposals had not yet been finalised and officers needed time to manage communications that provided reassurance and did not cause undue fear or alarm.

The Standards Commission found that the councillor had breached the provisions in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct that require councillors to keep certain information confidential, even if they hold a personal view that such information should be made public.

The Standards Commission suspended the councillor to:

• emphasise how important it is for elected members briefings to be treated as confidential, in order for them to be a safe space for discussion and information sharing,
• protect the relationship between elected members and council officers, which is based on trust and enables a council to function effectively; and
• allow council officers time to manage communications on sensitive topics and take difficult decisions in a controlled and sensitive manner, to avoid causing any unnecessary fear or alarm.

PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

What happened?
A councillor sought preferential treatment when contacting council officers about a planning application his neighbour had submitted.

What did the Standards Commission decide?
The Standards Commission found the councillor had sought information that would not normally be available to members of the public. The councillor had also sought to exert influence in asking that the matter be dealt with urgently. The Standards Commission found that his actions amounted to attempts to seek preferential treatment in breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

The Standards Commission censured the councillor. In reaching this decision, the Standards Commission noted that officers may have felt under pressure to comply with these types of requests from councillors. There was, however, no evidence that the councillor attempted to put pressure on officers to reach a particular outcome in respect of the planning application, or that his actions had any bearing on the decision that was ultimately made.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

What happened?
A councillor failed to declare an interest, at a planning committee, in a planning application in respect of a housing development at a former industrial site located across the road from his property.

What did the Standards Commission decide?
The Standards Commission found that, while it was the nearest property to the proposed development, the councillor’s property was still some distance from it. The Standards Commission further found that the councillor had supported the recommendation made by officers to grant the application at the meeting, albeit in an amended form with conditions on the number of properties to be built. The Standards Commission nevertheless considered that, having applied the objective test, as required by the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, the councillor should have reached the view that his connection to the planning application would reasonably be regarded as being so significant that it would be considered as being likely to affect his potential discussion and decision-making.

The Standards Commission determined, therefore, that the councillor should have declared an interest, withdrawn from the meeting and taken no part in the discussion and decision-making on the matter. It found that in failing to do so, he had breached the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

The Standards Commission accepted that there was no evidence or suggestion that the councillor had tried to conceal his interest. The Standards Commission was also not satisfied that it had evidence before it that would lead it to conclude that the councillor’s interest had affected his discussion or decision-making as a member of the committee, or that he had acted in anything other than good faith, when taking part in the decision-making. The Standards Commission agreed, however, that the requirement for councillors to declare interests is a fundamental requirement of the Code as it gives the public confidence that decisions are being made in the public interest, and not the personal interest of any councillor or their friends or family. A failure to comply with the Code’s requirements in this regard can erode confidence in the Council and leave its decisions open to legal challenge. As such, the Standards Commission decided it was necessary to suspend the councillor to promote adherence to the Code and maintain public confidence.

QUASI-JUDICIAL AND REGULATORY DECISION-MAKING

What happened? (Case 1)
A councillor was found, during a meeting of a licensing committee, to have been disrespectful towards an applicant who was seeking to renew his taxi licence.

What did the Standards Commission decide?
The Standards Commission found that remarks and questions the councillor made and put to the applicant amounted to a personal attack, and were not relevant or appropriate in the context of determining whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold the licence. The councillor was found to have breached the provisions in the Councillors’ Code of Conduct that require councillors to ensure that, in making quasi-judicial and regulatory decisions (such as on licensing and planning matters), they must act fairly and must be seen to be acting fairly.

The Standards Commission noted that adherence to these provisions helps reduce the risk of successful legal challenge against Council decisions (and the consequent impact in terms of resources and reputational damage). The Standards Commission found the councillor’s conduct had the potential to bring the Council into disrepute and risked public confidence in it being adversely affected. It decided, therefore, that it was necessary to impose a suspension to promote adherence to the Code and to reflect the serious nature of the breach.

What happened? (Case 2)
A councillor, who was a member of the Council’s licensing committee, made comments to the press that demonstrated that he had pre-judged a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence application before it was heard by the committee.

What did the Standards Commission decide?
The Standards Commission found the councillor then voted against the licence being granted at the licensing committee meeting. It found that, in doing so, he failed to avoid the appearance of improper conduct. The Standards Commission further found that when the applicant appealed the decision to the courts, the councillor then took part in a vote about whether the Council should defend its decision to refuse application. This was despite being aware that one of the grounds of appeal was that he, as an individual, had pre-judged the matter.

The Standards Commission determined that the councillor had pre-judged the application and, as such, should have withdrawn from the initial committee meetings and taken no part in the discussion or decision-making on the application or the decision on whether to defend the appeal. His failure to declare an interest and withdraw amounted to a breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, which requires councillors to refrain from pre-judging quasi-judicial and regulatory matters.

The Standards Commission noted that councillors are required to consider any quasi-judicial and regulatory matter fairly and on its individual merits. The Standards Commission emphasised that this is a fundamental requirement of the Code as it helps ensure public confidence and trust in local authorities and reduces the risk of their decisions being challenged. The Standards Commission decided, therefore, that it was necessary to impose a suspension to reflect the serious nature of the breach and to highlight the importance of adherence to the Code’s provisions.