Agenda and minutes

It was proposed by Councillor Scott, and seconded by Councillor Dawlings, that Councillor Horwood be appointed as Chairman for the meeting of the Sub-Committee.  A vote was taken and Councillor Horwood was elected Chairman.

No apologies for absence were reported.

The Chairman invited the Subject Member, Town Councillor Goodman, to explain why he considered that the meeting should be conducted in private.

 

Town Councillor Goodman explained that he felt that the Investigating Officer’s report contained untruths that were dreamt up and based upon hearsay.  He added that the complainant, Christine Darbyshir, should have responded to his statement.

 

Town Councillor Goodman added that if the Hearing Panel determined that the meeting be held in public then he would like all documentation to be available to the press.

 

Following a request from the Hearing Panel, the Legal Advisor, Mr Trowell, advised that the meeting should be open to the public and press because, although the information contained within the agenda papers was exempt by virtue of paragraph 10 of Part 2 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the exemption was over ridden by the fact that the individuals who were identified therein had waived their confidentiality.  In addition paragraph 10 of Part 2 of the Schedule applied in that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed maintaining any exemption.

 

He also advised that all paperwork with the redaction of signatures, personal addresses and telephone numbers, should be available to the press and public.

The Hearing Panel then left the meeting room to deliberate in private as to whether the public and press should be excluded from the hearing.

 

On their return, the Chairman announced the Hearing Panel’s decision that the hearing should continue in open session and the appropriate paperwork be made available to the public and press.

Parish Councillor MacKenzie advised that he knew Town Councillor Goodman through his former business, as Town Councillor Goodman had been a customer of his.  However Parish Councillor Mackenzie confirmed that he remained impartial.

Due to the fact that Town Councillor Goodman had indicated in previous correspondence that both the Investigating Officer and the Independent Person were both biased and not impartial in this matter, the Hearing Panel felt it prudent to consider these allegations and make a judgement before considering the case before them.

 

The Chairman invited Town Councillor Goodman to provide the Hearing Panel with his reasons for stating that both the Investigating Officer and the Independent Person were not impartial.

 

Town Councillor Goodman explained that when the complaint was first made it was originally dealt with by Mr Robin Harris.  Mr Harris had asked Town Councillor Goodman to apologise to Christine Darbyshir, which Town Councillor Goodman felt implied he was guilty and therefore considered that Mr Harris had formed a bias towards him.  Because Mr Harris then appointed Mrs Price as the Investigating Officer, Town Councillor Goodman felt that she would also have the same bias due to conversations she would have had with Mr Harris. 

 

Town Councillor Goodman also felt that the Independent Person, Mr Wright, was not impartial as he had been involved in conversations with both Mr Harris and Mrs Price. In addition it had been the Independent Person that had recommended that the matter be referred to an Investigating Officer.

 

Mrs Price confirmed to the Hearing Panel that she had been appointed by the Monitoring Officer who, at that time, had been Mr Cummins – not Mr Harris.

 

Mr Wright explained that he was not an elected member of the Council, did not live in the borough and did not know the individuals in this case.  He confirmed that his role was to consider whether a complaint could be a possible breach of the Code of Conduct, and in this case he had read the complaint and came to the conclusion that there could have possibly been a breach.  In addition, Town Councillor Goodman had been given the opportunity to discuss the matter with him, but he failed to respond.

 

The Hearing Panel left the meeting room to consider this matter in private.

 

Once the Hearing Panel had returned the Chairman announced that the members had agreed that both the Investigating Officer and the Independent Person were independent and had acted impartially throughout the case.

Investigating Officer’s case

 

The Chairman invited the Investigating Officer, Mrs Price, to present her case to the Hearing Panel.  Mrs Price outlined the three separate incidents that had occurred during February and March 2013 which had given rise to the complaint.  She explained that Town Councillor Goodman had been given several opportunities to discuss the complaint with her, however he did not respond to her letters and refused to engage in any way with her.  Mrs Price explained that she had therefore produced her report based upon the evidence she had received, which included information from other parties and copies of emails and other correspondence.

 

Mrs Price concluded that, from her findings, she considered that Town Councillor Goodman had failed to comply with the Council’s Code of Conduct in the first and last allegation.

 

Questions from Subject Member

 

The Chairman then invited Town Councillor Goodman to ask any questions of Mrs Price.  Town Councillor Goodman began by asking the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Mr Scarborough, whether he felt that the complaint had been dealt with in a fair manner.  Mr Scarborough stated that he was satisfied that the complaint had been dealt with according to the agreed procedures and that both sides had been treated fairly.

 

Town Councillor Goodman questioned why the other parties mentioned in Mrs Price’s report were not present to be cross-examined and was advised that they had not been called as witnesses by him.  In addition, it was their choice as to whether they attended the meeting. 

 

He also questioned why the Hearing had been held just before the elections and was advised that the meeting would have been held on 3 March 2015 but Town Councillor Goodman had specifically asked for it to be delayed to allow him more time to prepare.  In addition Mr Scarborough explained that, although the Council was in the purdah period, legal case law established a “business as usual” presumption with Council business.  The Hearing was ready to proceed at this time and, given previous concerns expressed about the time taken to progress the complaint, it was appropriate to proceed with the Hearing as soon as possible.

 

Town Councillor Goodman queried why the Hearing Panel was not made up of independent councillors and was advised that the Hearing Panel had to include three borough councillors that were members of the Audit and Governance Committee.  There were no Independent Councillors appointed to that Committee. It was explained that the Parish Member and the Independent Member had no voting rights.

 

Town Councillor Goodman also questioned why reference to his letter to Mrs Price dated 5 August 2013 was not included in the final report. Mrs Price explained to the Hearing Panel that this was a procedural letter attaching her draft report and she did not consider it important enough to be included.  It was noted that the same applied to Town Councillor Goodman’s reply acknowledging the content of that letter.

 

With regard to a claim by Town Councillor Goodman that some evidence had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Hearing Panel invited the Monitoring Officer, the Subject Member and the Independent Person to make representations as to whether any sanctions should be applied and in what form.

 

The Monitoring Officer considered that the following sanctions should  be recommended to Paddock Wood Town Council in this case:

 

(1)  Letter of apology from Town Councillor Goodman to the complainant;

(2)  Formal censure be issued to Town Councillor Goodman from Paddock Wood Town Council;

(3)  Future visits by Town Councillor Goodman to the Council offices be pre-arranged and supervised;

(4)  Paddock Wood Town Council arrange Code of Conduct training for all Town Council Members, including Town Councillor Goodman.

 

The Independent Person considered that the following sanctions should be recommended to Paddock Wood Town Council in this case:

 

(1)  Training for all members of Paddock Wood Town Council in the Code of Conduct and the role of councillors;

(2)  Letter of apology from Town Councillor Goodman to the complainant, to be approved by the Chairman of the Town Council;

(3)  Supervised visits when meeting staff at the Council offices.

 

Town Councillor Goodman considered that it was difficult for independent councillors to be heard by the Town Council so he felt that more support and training was required for all councillors.

 

The Hearing Panel retired to discuss the sanctions to apply in private.

 

Final Decision

 

On the Hearing Panel’s return the Chairman  announced the following sanctions that were considered appropriate to recommend  to Paddock Wood Town Council:

 

(1)  Training for Town Councillor Goodman on the Code of Conduct, to be delivered within two months of the next election if he remains a councillor;

 

(2)  Training for all Paddock Wood Town Councillors on the Code of Conduct and the role of a councillor, to be delivered within two months of the next election (and thereafter within two months of the election of any new councillors), and other training provided as deemed appropriate;

 

(3)  That Paddock Wood Town Council considers how best to support each individual member within the Council and provide suitable provision for this; and

 

(4)  That Town Councillor Goodman only be allowed to visit the Council offices by prior arrangement and in the presence of a third party for the next six months.

 

In addition the Chairman stated that the Hearing Panel considered it unfortunate that Councillor Goodman had failed to engage with the Investigating Officer throughout the investigation process.

 

 

DECISION NOTICE OF CODE OF CONDUCT SUB- COMMITTEE

2 April 2015

 

Complaint No: T003190

 

On 2 April 2015, the Code of Conduct Sub-Committee of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council considered a report of an investigation into the alleged conduct of Town Councillor Ron Goodman, a member of Paddock Wood Town Council. 

 

Complaint summary

 

On 21 May 2013, the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from Ms Darbyshir concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Goodman.  A general summary of the complaint is set out below:

 

(1)  That on 18 February 2013, during a telephone conversation, Councillor Goodman used intimidating and threatening language to the complainant in respect of some historic Town Council minutes.  Councillor Goodman was aggressive in his assertion that the minutes were wrong.  The phone call left the complainant shaken.

 

(2)  That on 4 March 2013, during a Planning Committee meeting, Councillor Goodman shouted at the Complainant and demanded that she produce minutes of an historic Town Council meeting.  The Complainant was unable to do so and was left feeling belittled and incompetent.

 

(3)  That on 5 March 2013, at the Podmore Building (Paddock Wood Town Council’s offices) Councillor Goodman behaved in a threatening manner and had no consideration for the other duties that the Complainant had, in particular stating that his work was important, when it transpired after the events that the minutes the Councillor required had already been emailed to him.

 

Consultation with the Independent Person

 

(1)  Given the seriousness of the allegations and the refusal of Councillor Goodman to participate in any form of informal resolution, the Independent Person had considered that the matter should be formally investigated.

 

(2)  After hearing the evidence at the meeting, the Independent Person advised that he supported the Investigating Officer’s findings that Councillor Goodman had failed to comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct, as set out in her report.

 

Findings

 

After considering the submissions of the parties to the hearing and the views of the Independent Person, the Hearing Panel reached the following decisions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Allegation 1 – Telephone call on 18 February 2013.

 

It was alleged by Christine Darbyshir that, during a telephone conversation with Councillor Goodman on 18 February 2013, she was subjected to bullying, harassment and intimidation regarding the minutes of a meeting she had serviced on 20 September 2010.

 

Finding of facts:

 

(i)            The Hearing Panel acknowledged that it was not disputed by either party that Councillor Goodman telephoned the Council office on 18 February 2013 and spoke to Christine Darbyshir regarding the minutes of a meeting of the Council.

 

(ii)           The Hearing Panel had no reason to doubt the credibility of the evidence put forward by the Town Clerk and, in examining the evidence, the Hearing Panel felt that a conversation did take place between the two parties that amounted to more than a simple request for a copy of the minutes, as claimed by Councillor Goodman.  The evidence provided by the Town Clerk also backs up the statement made by Christine Darbyshir that Councillor Goodman wanted her to admit she had made a mistake and say that the minutes were wrong.

 

(iii)          It was the Hearing Panel’s view that Councillor Goodman’s denial that any such conversation occurred placed doubt on the entire creditability of his recollection of the incident and, therefore, it was their belief that the incident occurred as described by Christine Darbyshir.

 

Hearing Panel’s Decision:

           

Councillor Goodman’s conduct amounted to a failure to comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct.

 

Paragraph 1 states that “He/she shall behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful”

 

Paragraph 2 states that “He/she shall not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as bullying or intimidatory.”

 

Allegation 2 – Meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee on 4 March 2013.

 

It was alleged by Christine Darbyshir that, during a meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, Councillor Goodman subjected her to harassment by shouting at her whilst she serviced the meeting; his behaviour making her feel belittled and incompetent.

 

Finding of facts:

 

(i)            The Hearing Panel acknowledged that the fact that the minutes were asked for was not disputed, however there was a difference of opinion as to how these minutes were asked for.

 

(ii)           The Hearing Panel did not consider that the request to produce a copy of the minutes belittled Christine Darbyshir, and it was noted that she did admit in her interview that it was unlikely that the other councillors even noticed what was going on and were unlikely to think she was incompetent.

 

(iii)          The Hearing Panel considered that the evidence produced by Councillor Nicholls supported Councillor Goodman’s assertion that the debate was between them and not directed at Christine Darbyshir.  In addition, Councillor Nicholls stated that the request to produce the minutes did not reflect negatively on Christine Darbyshir, as there would be no expectation for her to produce minutes relating to a meeting held three years before.

 

(iv)          On balance the Hearing Panel did not believe that the events that occurred at this meeting, taken in isolation, amounted to harassment in themselves and that if any shouting did occur it was as part of the ‘boisterous’ meeting described by Councillor Nicholls and was not out of the ordinary.

 

Hearing Panel’s Decision:

           

No breach of the Code of Conduct.

 

Allegation 3 – Visit to the Council Offices on 5 March 2013.

 

It was alleged by Christine Darbyshir that, on 5 March 2013, Councillor Goodman stormed into the Council offices and subjected her to a barrage of shouting, bullying and intimidating behaviour.

 

Finding of facts:

 

(i)            The Hearing Panel acknowledged that it was not disputed by either party that Councillor Goodman visited the Council offices on 5 March 2013 with his wife whilst Christine Darbyshir was there alone.

 

(ii)           The Hearing Panel took account of the statement from Councillor Hamilton as to Christine Darbyshir’s distress following the visit by Councillor Goodman to the Council offices which members felt added weight to Christine Darbyshir’s account of the incident.

 

(iii)          The Hearing Panel considered Elizabeth Goodman’s evidence and noted that the wording was almost identical to that used in Councillor Goodman’s own account of events.  Whilst the Hearing Panel did not dispute that she was outside of the offices, there was doubt as to how much of the incident was witnessed.  In addition, the Hearing Panel did not consider Elizabeth Goodman to be a truly independent witness.

 

(iv)          The Hearing Panel took account of the Investigating Officer’s view that Christine Darbyshir was a credible witness and on the balance of probabilities (which was the standard of proof to be met in these matters) believed that the events that occurred on 5 March 2013 were as she described.

 

Hearing Panel’s Decision:

 

Councillor Goodman’s conduct amounted to a failure to comply with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct.

 

Paragraph 1 states that “He/she shall behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful”

 

Paragraph 2 states that “He/she shall not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as bullying or intimidatory.”

 

Sanctions applied

 

The Hearing Panel agreed that the breach of thePaddock Wood Town Council’s Code of Conduct warrants the following sanctions:

 

(1)  Training for Councillor Goodman on the Code of Conduct, to be delivered within two months of the next election if he remains a councillor;

 

(2)  Training for all Paddock Wood Town Councillors on the Code of Conduct and the role of a councillor, to be delivered within two months of the next election (and thereafter within two months of the election of any new councillors), and other training provided as deemed appropriate;

 

(3)  That Paddock Wood Town Council considers how best to support each individual member within the Council and provide suitable provision for this; and

 

(4)  That Councillor Goodman only be allowed to visit the Council offices by prior arrangement and in the presence of a third party for the next six months.

 

In addition the Chairman stated that the Hearing Panel considered it unfortunate that Councillor Goodman had failed to engage with the Investigating Officer throughout the investigation process.

 

Appeal

 

There is no right of appeal against the Hearing Panel’s decision.

 

 

Notification of decision

 

This decision notice is sent to the:

 

·                     The subject member, Councillor Goodman

·                     The complainant, Christine Darbyshir

·                     The Borough Council’s Monitoring Officer

·                     Clerk to the Paddock Wood Town Council

·                     Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s Audit and Governance Committee

 

Additional help

 

If you need additional support in relation to this decision notice or future contact with the Borough Council, please let us know as soon as possible.

 

If you have difficulty reading this notice, we can make reasonable adjustments to assist you, in line with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010. We can also help if English is not your first language.  Please contact Wendy Newton-May, Local Democracy Officer, on 01892 554179, or email wendy.newton-may@tunbridgewells.gov.uk

 

 

 

Date: 9 April 2015     

 

 

 

BOROUGH COUNCILLOR LEN HORWOOD

 

Chairman of the Code of Conduct Sub-Committee

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Civic Way

ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS

Kent

TN1 1RS