STANDARDS COMMITTEE

 

 

MINUTES of a meeting held on 18th October, 2007.

 

Present: Mr. C.D. Samuel (Chairman); Mr. P. Langmaid, Mr. D. Perkins, Community Councillor Mrs. A. Pryer and Councillors Mrs. M.E.J. Birch and Mrs. M. Kelly Owen.

 

In attendance: Community Councillor D. Sylvester and Community Councillor I. Barlow together with Mrs. C. Crompton and Ms. K. Shaw of the Public Services Ombudsman’s Office.

 

 

461     APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE -

 

These were received from Mr. G. Ellis and Councillor Mrs. V.M. Hartrey.

 

 

462     MINUTES -

 

RESOLVED - T H A T the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd October, 2007 be approved as a correct record.

 

 

463     DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST -

 

No declarations were received.

 

 

464     PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE -

 

The Committee considered a proposed Procedure to be followed at hearings of the Standards Committee where the Committee has found that the Councillor has or may have failed to comply with his/her Authority’s Code of Conduct, following an investigation and report by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.

 

RESOLVED - T H A T the proposed Procedure be adopted.

 

 

465     GUIDANCE FOR HEARINGS OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE -

 

The committee considered a proposed Guidance for hearings of the Standards Committee where the Committee has found that the Councillor has or may have failed to comply with his/her Authority’s Code of Conduct following an investigation and report by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.

 

RESOLVED - T H A T the proposed Guidance be adopted.

 

 

466     INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS - COMMUNITY COUNCILLOR SYLVESTER, SULLY COMMUNITY COUNCIL -

 

The Chairman introduced all present, and asked Community Councillor Sylvester if he wished the proceedings to be conducted in private or in public. Community Councillor Sylvester agreed that the meeting be held in public.  Mrs. Crompton was in agreement.  The Committee then permitted the public and press to enter the room.

 

The Chairman also advised Community Councillor Sylvester that Ms. K. Shaw of the Public Services Ombudsman’s Office wished to attend the meeting as an observer.  Community Councillor Sylvester expressed his agreement.

The Public Services Ombudsman had prepared a report in respect of an investigation into allegations against Community Councillor Sylvester, a member of Sully Community Council and a copy had been presented to the Standards Committee on 30th July 2007 to enable the Committee to make an initial determination as to whether Community Councillor S. had failed, or may have failed, to comply with that Community Council’s Code of Conduct.

 

The Ombudsman’s investigation had been in respect of a complaint received on 21st November, 2005 (comprising nine allegations) and a second complaint received on 15th February, 2006 (comprising two allegations).

 

The findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation had been:

 

“…………………. in respect of allegations 2,7 and 9 … that there is no evidence of a breach of the code of conduct.  My finding in relation to allegation 6 is that no action is necessary.  My finding in respect of allegations 1,3,4,5 and 8 and in respect of the second batch of allegations is that my report on this investigation should be referred to the Monitoring Officer of the Vale of Glamorgan County Borough Council for consideration by the Standards Committee.”

 

Regulation 7 of the Local Government Investigations (Functions of Monitoring Officers and Standards Committees) (Wales) Regulations 2001, require that, following consideration of the Ombudsman’s report, the Standards Committee must either:

 

·             determine that there was no evidence of any failure to comply with the code of conduct of the relevant authority concerned and must notify any person who is the subject of the investigation, any person who made an allegation which gave rise to the investigation and the Local Commissioner in Wales accordingly; or

 

·             determine that any person who is the subject of the investigation should be given the opportunity to make representations, either orally or in writing in respect of the findings of the investigation and any allegations that he or she has failed, or may have failed, to comply with the relevant authority’s code of conduct.

 

Having considered the report and findings of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, the Standards Committee on 30th July, 2007 had

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)       T H A T the findings of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales in respect of Allegations 2, 7 and 9, i.e. “that there is no evidence of a breach of the Code of Conduct” be endorsed.

 

(2)       T H A T the findings of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales of Allegation 6, i.e. “that no action is necessary” be endorsed.

 

(3)       T H A T in respect of the findings of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales regarding Allegations 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8, and in respect of the second batch of allegations, Community Councillor Sylvester be given the opportunity to make representations either orally or in writing before a further meeting of the Standards Committee and that the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales’ Investigating Officer be also invited to attend the meeting.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

To comply with the provisions of the 2001 Regulations.

 

Committee were reminded that, in line with the Local Government Investigations (Functions of Monitoring Officers and Standards Committees) (Wales) Regulations 2001, and following consideration of any representations, the Committee must determine:

 

·             that there is no evidence of any failure to comply with the code of conduct of the relevant authority and that therefore no action needs to be taken in respect of the matters which are the subject of the investigation;

 

·             that a member or co-opted member (or former member or co-opted member) of a relevant authority has failed to comply with the relevant authority’s code of conduct but that no action needs to be taken in respect of that failure;

 

·             that a member or co-opted member (or former member or co-opted member) of the relevant authority has failed to comply with the authority’s code of conduct and should be censured; or

 

·             that a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority has failed to comply with the authority’s code of conduct and should be suspended or partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of that authority for a period not exceeding 6 months.

 

Mrs. Crompton provided a brief overview of the report of the Ombudsman’s investigation in that allegations against Community Councillor Sylvester had been made by a fellow Sully Community Councillor at a time when Community Councillor Sylvester:

 

·             was Chairman of Sully Cricket Club

·             owned a DIY Store

·             had a brother who was employed by the Community Council for the cricket season.

 

Mrs. Crompton stated that the investigation had revealed that Community Councillor Sylvester’s private interests had brought him into conflict with his public role.

 

The Ombudsman’s report had identified the relevant paragraphs of Sully Community Council’s Code of Conduct which had been breached, and the report had concluded that there had been “no breach” in 3 cases, “no further action necessary” in the case of 1 allegation, and that there was a case to answer in the case of the remaining allegations.

 

Mrs. Crompton advised of a typographical error in paragraph 2 of the report - “March 2006” should have read “February 2006”.  Mrs. Crompton stated that this did not impinge on the Ombudsman’s findings.

 

(Community Councillor Barlow referred to a further typographical error in paragraph 119 of the report - “June 2005”, not “June 2006”).

 

Community Councillor Barlow, on behalf of Community Councillor Sylvester, stated that, whilst the report of the Ombudsman had been comprehensive, the “context” of the allegations had not been referred to in the report.  Community Councillor Barlow wished to make it clear that the Standards Committee was looking at how Community Councillor Sylvester had behaved at a particular time when a particular attitude prevailed within Sully Community Council.  Community Councillor Barlow stated that he was fortunate in that, as he was a Community Councillor on Sully Community Council himself (for some 25 years), he was able to see for himself how the situation came about.

 

Sully Community Council had been a harmonious Council whose members worked for the residents of Sully.  The “spirit” of the law was accepted, but not always the “letter” of the law.

 

In response to the findings of the Ombudsman that Community Councillor Sylvester had failed to identify potential conflicts of interest as a member of the Cricket Club and as a Director of a DIY store, Community Councillor Barlow stated that, at no time, did this happen.  It was clear from the Ombudsman’s report that whilst Community Councillor Sylvester did declare an interest, he did not always leave the meeting.

 

Community Councillor Barlow stated that whilst the Community Council worked for the inhabitants of Sully, it was not necessarily “ticking every box” in terms of legality.

 

Everything changed following the 2004 elections and an influx of new members.  Community Councillor Barlow stated that the thrust of the Community Council moved from being an “action body” to a point where a number of members of the Council - Community Councillor Cox for example, spoke at length about procedural matters.  Petty, personal differences emerged.

 

Community Councillor Barlow drew Committee’s attention to extracts of a letter dated 5th January, 2006 from Community Councillor Sylvester to the Ombudsman attached to the Ombudsman’s report at annex 2 and asked the Chairman if he could circulate a copy of a letter dated 30th March 2006, from the Ombudsman’s Office to Community Councillor Cox.  The letter had been widely distributed and the contents should not, therefore, be considered to be “confidential”.  It was important that the members of the Standards Committee read the letter, stated Community Councillor Barlow, because it set the tone of events in Sully Community Council at that time.

 

Mrs. Crompton stated that she had no objections to the letter being circulated at the meeting, and the Chairman of the Standards Committee agreed to Community Councillor Barlow’s request.  Mrs. Crompton did state that the contents of the letter did not relate to the allegations involving Community Councillor Sylvester.

 

Community Councillor Barlow referred to the following parts of the letter:

 

“…………….. It is apparent from the papers which you submitted with your allegations that there is currently a great deal of ill-feeling and acrimony between members of the Council, and indeed the Council appears to be divided into warring factions, one of which supports you as Chairman whilst the other supports Councillor Mary Bollingham, the Vice Chair.  Councillor Bollingham’s attempt to discredit you at the Council’s meeting on 10 November last at which you were unable to be present, followed an attempt to remove her from office at a previous meeting which had apparently been found to be irregular.

 

The unpleasant situation prevailing within the Council does a grave disservice to the people of Sully whom the Council is meant to be serving.  The Ombudsman has no intention of intervening in the procedural wrangling which is blighting the Community Council’s business, or of allowing himself to be enlisted by one faction in an attempt to discredit the other.  Under the authority delegated to me by the Ombudsman I have accordingly decided not to investigate your allegation.

 

The Ombudsman will consider on their merits any future allegations which he may receive about the conduct of individual members of Sully Community Council and may decide to investigate any which appear to be serious and capable of being substantiated.  I take this opportunity, however, to remind all members of the Council that making an allegation about a fellow-councillor which proves to be malicious or vexatious is itself a breach of the code of conduct of which the Ombudsman may take a serious view.

 

I am copying this letter to the monitoring officer of the Vale of Glamorgan Council; to the clerk and all members of Sully Community Council and to One Voice Wales.”

 

Community Councillor Barlow stated that Community Councillor Cox had made a number of allegations against a number of Sully Community Councillors, and all had revolved around procedural matters.  Community Councillor Barlow also stated that Community Councillor Cox had since resigned as a Councillor together with the other councillors who had made the complaints against Community Councillor Sylvester, and ventured that the work of the Community Council had improved since that time.

 

Having set the tone of Sully Community Council at the time of the allegations against Community Councillor Sylvester, Community Councillor Barlow suggested that  Community Councillor Sylvester was operating on the basis of the accepted procedures at that time.

 

Community Councillor Barlow proceeded to refer to the findings of the Ombudsman in respect of each allegation against Community Councillor Sylvester.

 

Allegation 1: “That Community Councillor Sylvester used his position as a member to secure advantages for the Cricket Club at meetings of the Community Council between January and May 2005 when matters relating to the Cricket Club were discussed, failed to declare an interest at such meetings, failed to withdraw from such meetings having declared an interest, and behaved in a manner likely to bring the office of member and the Community Council into disrepute.”

 

Community Councillor Barlow did not dispute the fact that Community Councillor Sylvester did not withdraw from the meetings in question.  It was not the general practise of Community Councillor Sylvester to withdraw from meetings when  matters concerning Sully Cricket Club were discussed.  Community Councillor Barlow did stress, however, that Sully Cricket Club was a voluntary organisation.  Community Councillor Barlow wished to make it clear that, on every occasion that Sully Cricket Club was discussed in meetings of the Community Council, Community Councillor Sylvester did declare his interest. 

 

What was important for the members of the Standards Committee to consider was the context of his failure to withdraw.  In the past, it had been the practise for members to withdraw from meetings only in exceptional circumstances, and any allegation of failure to withdraw from meetings in such circumstances applied equally to all members of the Community Council, although Community Councillor Barlow acknowledged that such action was required “in accordance with the law”.

 

The bundle of papers forming part of the Ombudsman’s report indicated that Councillor Cox had failed to declare an interest and withdraw from meetings in which he had an interest.  Successive Clerks to the Council had given wrong advice in this matter, and it was now acknowledged that all Councillors should withdraw from meetings when matters of a personal interest were discussed.

 

Community Councillor Barlow asked members of the Standards Committee to bear in mind the fact that at no point was personal gain achieved by Community Councillor Sylvester.

 

Members sought confirmation from Community Councillor Barlow that Community Councillor Sylvester had not withdrawn from the meetings on 18th January, 1st February and 3rd May 2005, at which matters relating to the Cricket Club had been discussed, and such confirmation was given.

 

Community Councillor Barlow also confirmed that Community Councillor Sylvester had failed to declare his interest at a meeting on 18th January, 2005.

 

In conclusion, Community Councillor Barlow stated that the continued vicious attacks by Community Councillor Cox on Community Councillor Sylvester caused Community Councillor Sylvester some concern.  Community Councillor Sylvester had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer whereupon he applied for dispensation to speak on matters relating to the Cricket Club.

 

Allegation 3: “That Community Councillor Sylvester used his position as a member to secure an advantage for his brother (who was employed by the Community Council as an assistant groundsman), failed to withdraw from meetings of the Community Council in May and June 2005 at which his brother’s salary was discussed, failed to show respect and consideration for the remaining Members of the Community Council and behaved in a manner which was likely to bring the office of member and the Community Council into disrepute.”

 

Community Councillor Barlow stated that the failure of Community Councillor Sylvester to withdraw from the meetings on 3rd May and 7th June, 2005 were symptomatic of the practise of the Community Council at that time.  Community Councillor Barlow indicated that the advice provided at the time by the Community Council’s Clerk was inappropriate and wrong.

 

Community Councillor Sylvester accepted that he was wrong not to withdraw from the meetings, although Community Councillor Sylvester did declare an interest.  It was now accepted that he should have withdrawn from the meeting.

 

Allegation 4: “That Community Councillor Sylvester used his position to advance the interests of the Cricket Club and made improper use of the Community Council’s resources to distribute copies of Cricket Club fixtures leaflets to households in Sully, and failed to declare an interest at a meeting in July 2005 when the matter was discussed.”

 

Community Councillor Barlow advised that the sequence of events and background were pertinent in that the Community Council, from time to time, circulated a newsletter.  There had been occasions when the newsletter had been circulated in conjunction with other pamphlets for organisations in the Village.

 

In 2005, the distribution of the newsletter coincided with the distribution of the Cricket Club pamphlets, and Community Councillor Sylvester had asked the Clerk of the Council for the name of the distributor, and suggested some form of joint distribution, with the cost of the distribution of the Cricket Club pamphlets to be funded independently by the Cricket Club.  Community Councillor Barlow maintained that the question of fees was entirely a matter to be dealt with by the Clerk and Community Councillor Sylvester assumed that the Clerk would bring the arrangement to the Community Council’s attention.

 

The then Clerk of the Council had agreed the suggestion and did not suggest that Community Councillor Sylvester had a conflict of interest.  Community Councillor Sylvester had not thought it necessary to refer this arrangement to the Community Council and the Clerk of the Council had agreed.

 

Community Councillor Barlow argued that, what was not mentioned within the Ombudsman’s report was that the Cricket Club leaflets were only to be distributed throughout Sully whereas the Community Council newsletter was distributed in Lavernock as well, hence the disparity in the split of the costs of distribution between the Cricket Club and the Community Council.

 

Community Councillor Barlow stated that he would have asked the Clerk to give evidence.  However, she now resides in New Zealand.  The allegation was refuted, and Community Councillor Barlow submitted that Community Councillor Sylvester did not act improperly.

 

Allegation 5: “That Community Councillor Sylvester failed to withdraw from meetings in December 2002 and June 2004 when the Community Council authorised payments in respect of goods and materials supplied by his store to the Community Council; failed to show respect for the remaining Members and the Community Council’s Clerk, and compromised the Clerk’s impartiality in relation to the purchase of such goods and materials.”

 

Community Councillor Barlow reiterated the comments he had made earlier in respect of Allegations 1 and 3 in that the practise of withdrawing from meetings when conflicts of interest arose had not been followed in Sully Community Council for many years.

 

Community Councillor Sylvester had accepted the advice of the former Clerk to the Community Council but now accepted that the advice had been wrong.

 

However, the minutes of the meetings did indicate that Community Councillor Sylvester had declared an interest on each and every time the matters had arisen.

 

Community Councillor Barlow also indicated that it was clear that other Members of the Community Council had acted similarly in similar situations and referred to a matter involving Community Councillor Cox.

 

Finally, Community Councillor Barlow stated that no pressure had been placed on the Community Council to use the services of Silver Star DIY Store - it was the supplier of choice, and purchases were made with the full knowledge of all Members of the Community Council.  It was also the choice of the former Clerk of the Community Council.

 

Allegation 8: “That Community Councillor Sylvester used his position as a Member to secure an advantage for the Cricket Club by directing the Council’s groundsman in relation to work on the cricket pitch, failed to show respect and consideration for the Clerk and the groundsman and acted in a manner likely to bring the office of Member and the Community Council into disrepute.”

 

Community Councillor Barlow stated that he felt that this allegation fell into two parts.

 

Regarding the siting of the storage facility, it had been the understanding of the Community Council that the Vale of Glamorgan Council would provide new facilities.

 

The Cricket Club had commenced the works, but was informed on commencement by the then Acting Clerk to the Community Council (Community Councillor Cox) that, whilst the erection of the storage facility had been agreed in principle by the Community Council, a final decision had yet to be made.

 

The contractor had been engaged by the Cricket Club, and as soon as the confusion as to the commencement of the works arose, instructions were issued to stop the work.

 

Community Councillor Barlow advised that, in giving instructions to the contractors, Community Councillor Sylvester was acting as a member of the Cricket Club and not as a Community Councillor.

 

Regarding the allegation of directing the Council’s groundsman in relation to the work on the cricket pitch, Community Councillor Barlow referred to Community Councillor Sylvester’s comments as contained in Annex 11 to the Ombudsman’s report (paragraph gg) in which Community Councillor Sylvester stated that he lives some 200 yards from the playing field and, from time to time, visits the playing field for pleasure.  As such, Community Councillor Sylvester often spoke to the groundsman, and was often approached by the groundsman for advice.  Community Councillor Sylvester was more than happy to provide this advice.  At no time did Community Councillor Sylvester give instructions to the groundsman.

 

Community Councillor Sylvester strongly refuted the allegation.

 

Second Batch of Allegations

 

“That Community Councillor Sylvester

 

-                      failed to declare his interest as a member of the Community Council’s Playing Field Working Group when the membership of the Group was being discussed at meetings of the Community Council on 22nd November, 2005 and 7th March, 2006;

-                      failed to comply with the terms of a dispensation granted to him by the Standards Committee of the Vale of Glamorgan Council on 6th June, 2005 in relation to his personal interest in the Cricket Club at meetings of the Community Council on 22nd November, 2005, 10th, 17th and 24th January and 7th February, 2006.”

 

Community Councillor Barlow stated that, following personal “attacks” on Community Councillor Sylvester by Community Councillor Cox, Community Councillor Sylvester had applied for dispensation to speak on any matters concerning Sully Cricket Club.  On receipt of a letter from the Vale of Glamorgan Council stating that the Standards Committee had granted the dispensation, Community Councillor Sylvester had understood that a copy of the letter had been sent to the Clerk of the Community Council.  Community Councillor Barlow acknowledged that there was now some doubt as to whether a copy of the letter had indeed been sent.

 

In addition, it was also acknowledged that Community Councillor Sylvester’s understanding of how the dispensation worked was flawed.  Being a layman, Community Councillor Sylvester felt that there was no need for him to declare an interest in Cricket Club matters.  He now realised that there was a requirement for him to declare an interest together with the fact that he had been granted dispensation to speak.

 

Community Councillor Sylvester accepted that he did not behave properly, but in mitigation maintained that he acted in good faith.  No guidance had been issued with the award of the dispensation.

 

Furthermore, Community Councillor Barlow maintained that the letter from the Deputy Monitoring Officer informing of the decision of the Standards Committee to grant a dispensation was unqualified and had stated that Community Councillor Sylvester could “speak on any matters regarding Sully Centurions Cricket Club…”.  Community Councillor Barlow also referred to the statement of the Monitoring Officer as contained in Annex 9 of the Ombudsman’s report, in particular the handwritten amendment to the affect that the dispensation had related to “non-financial issues concerning … the Club”.

 

Community Councillor Barlow added that it was clear from the minutes of the Community Council that Community Councillor Sylvester had not voted on matters relating to the Cricket Club.

 

In response to a question relating to paragraph 119 of the Ombudsman’s report in which it stated that Community Councillor Sylvester had voted on a motion relating to the membership of the Playing Field Working Group (at a meeting on 22nd November, 2005), Community Councillor Barlow pointed out that the vote had arisen as a result of membership to the Playing Field Working Group and did not appertain to the Cricket Club.

 

The question was also asked if Community Councillor Sylvester had voted at the meetings on 17th January, 24th January and 7th February, 2006.  Community Councillor Barlow stated that Community Councillor Sylvester had never voted on matters relating to the Cricket Club.

 

Mrs. Crompton was given an opportunity to sum up, and stated that:

 

Allegation 1: Community Councillor Barlow, on behalf of Community Councillor Sylvester, had accepted that Community Councillor Sylvester had not withdrawn from the meetings.  Mrs. Crompton referred to meetings of the Community Council held on 18th January and 25th January, 2005 at which matters relating to the Cricket Club had been discussed and at which Community Councillor Sylvester had not declared an interest.

 

Allegation 3: Whilst the minutes of the meeting of the Community Council on 7th June, 2005 did contain reference to a declaration of interest by Community Councillor Sylvester, the issue revolved around an earlier item that had been considered at the meeting involving the payment of a bonus to the assistant groundsman.

 

Allegation 4: It had been suggested that the Ombudsman’s report did not distinguish between the difference in the number of leaflets delivered for the Community Council and those for the Cricket Club.  Mrs. Crompton indicated that this difference was included in the report, although not as starkly as mentioned by Community Councillor Barlow.  The report also details the agent’s version of events.

 

Allegation 5: Mrs. Crompton had nothing further to add.

 

Allegation 8: Neither the Ombudsman’s report, nor the statement of the Groundsman stated that he had no experience of cricket pitches.  It does say, however, that the Groundsman had been on a training course.

 

The report also acknowledges that the construction works had been engaged by the Cricket Club and not the Community Council.

 

Second Batch of Allegations: What had been discussed at the meeting of the Community Council on 22nd November, 2005 was Community Councillor Sylvester’s membership of the Playing Field Working Group, and what was relevant was Community Councillor’s membership of the Cricket Club.

 

Mrs Crompton had nothing further to add.

 

Mrs. Crompton was asked if she distinguished between meetings of a Working Group and the meetings of the Community Council, in terms of Code of Conduct matters.  Mrs. Crompton referred to Sully Community Council’s Code of Conduct which defined a meeting as “any meeting of the relevant authority where members and officers of the relevant authority are present”.  Therefore, there was no distinguishment between a meeting of a Working Group and meetings of the Community Council.

 

Community Councillor Barlow, on behalf of Community Councillor Sylvester was given an opportunity to sum up, and stated:

 

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester had been a member of Sully Community Council for almost 19 years.  He had served the Community Council faithfully and well.

-                      He could not recall Community Councillor Sylvester missing a meeting of the Community Council.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester’s interest lay not only in cricket, but in the whole life of the village of Sully, as was reflected in the minutes of the Community Council.

-                      What we are considering is whether Community Councillor Sylvester has acted properly in the way the Council was run.

-                      The Members of Sully Community Council had been advised by the Clerk of the Council who was not a legally qualified person.  Community Councillor Sylvester rigidly accepted that advice.

-                      The practise in the Community Council in relation to matters of personal interests had been “you should leave the room, but it won’t take long, so don’t bother”.

-                      Community Councillor Barlow accepted that such matters were, in the strict legal sense, wrong.

-                      It had only been within the past three years that attempts had been made to blemish Community Councillor Sylvester’s unblemished record.

-                      Community Councillor Barlow asked the Standards Committee (as a resident of Sully) to permit Community Councillor Sylvester to continue doing so much good for the people of Sully, as it was crucial for Members such as him to prevail.

 

Community Councillor Sylvester made a number of comments as follows:

 

-                      The Playing Fields, used by the Bowls Club, Football Club and Cricket Club, were virtually the only concern of Sully Community Council.

-                      Given the above, the work of the Community Council revolved around the issue of the Playing Fields.

-                      The Groundsman knew nothing about cricket or bowls and had asked Community Councillor Sylvester for advice on cricket greens, and would often ring Community Councillor Sylvester for advice.

 

A member of the Standards Committee enquired if there was a chance that any Member of Sully Community Council would be unaware of Community Councillor Sylvester’s interest in the Cricket Club.  Community Councillor Sylvester replied that Sully was a small place and that most of the Councillors were friends and acquaintances of his.  The answer to the question was “no” and he added that everyone knew he was the Director of Silver Star DIY.

 

Community Councillor Sylvester and Community Councillor Barlow left the room together with Mrs. Crompton and Ms Shaw, and the public and press were excluded.  Members of the Standards Committee deliberated on the evidence that had been presented at the meeting, whereupon it was

 

RESOLVED -

 

(1)               T H A T the allegation that Community Councillor Sylvester used his position as a Member to secure advantages for the Cricket Club at meetings of the Community Council between January and May 2005 when matters relating to the Cricket Club were discussed, failed to declare an interest at such meetings, failed to withdraw from such meetings having declared an interest, and behaved in a manner likely to bring the office of member and the Community Council into disrepute was proved and that this constituted a breach of Paragraph 16(2) of the Code of Conduct for Members.

 

(2)       T H A T the allegation that Community Councillor Sylvester used his position as a Member to secure an advantage for his brother (who was employed by the Community Council as an assistant groundsman), failed to withdraw from meetings of the Community Council in May and June 2005 at which his brother’s salary was discussed, failed to show respect and consideration for the remaining Members of the Community Council and behaved in a manner which was likely to bring the office of member of the Community Council into disrepute was proved and that this constituted a breach of Paragraph 16(3) of the Code of Conduct for Members.

 

(3)       T H A T the allegation that Community Councillor Sylvester used his position to advance the interests of the Cricket Cub and made improper use of the Community Council’s resources to distribute copies of Cricket Club fixtures leaflets to households in Sully, and failed to declare an interest at a meeting in July 2005 when the matter was discussed was proved and that this constituted a breach of Paragraph 7 of the Code of Conduct for Members.

 

(4)       T H A T the allegation that Community Councillor Sylvester failed to withdraw from meetings in December 2002 and June 2004 when the Community Council authorised payments in respect of goods and materials supplied by his store to the Community Council, failed to show respect for the remaining Members and the Community Council’s Clerk, and compromised the Clerk’s impartiality in relation to the purchase of such goods and services was proved and that this constituted a breach of Paragraphs 16(2) of the Code of Conduct for Members.  The Standards Committee concurred with the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales that the evidence was inconclusive regarding a breach of paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) of the Code of Conduct for Members.

 

(5)       T H A T, with regard to the allegation that Community Councillor Sylvester used his position as a Member to secure an advantage for the Cricket Club by directing the Council’s groundsman in relation to work on the cricket pitch, failed to show respect and consideration for the Clerk and the groundsman and acted in a manner likely to bring the office of member of the Community Council into disrepute be found as follows:

 

-          that part of the allegation relating to the unauthorised works to the playing field was proved and that this constituted a breach of Paragraph 7(c) of the Code of Conduct for Members;

-          the part of the allegation relating to the issuing of unauthorised instructions to the groundsman was not proved on the balance of probabilities.

 

(6)       T H A T the allegation that Community Councillor Sylvester

 

-          failed to declare his interest as a Member of the Community Council’s Playing Field Working Group when the membership of the Group was discussed at meetings of the Community Council on 22nd November, 2005 and 7th March, 2006;

-          failed to comply with the terms of a dispensation granted to him by the Standards Committee of the Vale of Glamorgan Council on 6th June, 2005 in relation to his personal interest in the Cricket Club at meetings of the Community Council on 22nd November, 2005, 10th, 17th and 24th January and 7th February, 2006;

 

was proved and that this constitutes a breach of Paragraph 16(2) of the Code of Conduct for Members.

 

(7)       T H A T arising from Resolutions (1) to (6) above, Community Councillor Sylvester be suspended from being a Member of Sully Community Council for a period of three months.

 

(8)       T H A T Community Councillor Sylvester and Mr. R. Cox be notified of the Committee’s decision together with the reasons for the decisions.

 

(9)       T H A T Community Councillor Sylvester be advised of his right to appeal against the Committee’s determination within a period of 21 days of his receiving notification by giving notice in writing to:

 

            Local Government Modernisation Division

            National Assembly for Wales

            Cathays Park

            Cardiff

            CF10 3NQ

 

and that the notice of appeal must specify:

 

-          the grounds for appeal; and

-          whether or not the person giving notice of the appeal consents to the appeal being conducted by way of written representations.

 

(10)     T H A T Community Councillor Sylvester’s suspension to commence after the expiry of the time allowed for Community Councillor Sylvester to lodge notice of appeal, i.e. 21 days from receipt of the notice or pending and subject to the determination of the appeal, whichever is the later.

 

(11)     T H A T the findings of the Standards Committee as detailed in (1) to (7) above be publicised in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Investigations (Functions of Monitoring Officers and Standards Committees) (Wales)Regulations 2001.

 

(12)     T H A T the need for additional training of Sully Community Councillors and the Clerk to Sully Community Council in Code of Conduct matters be highlighted.

 

Reasons for decisions

 

Consideration was given to the evidence / information contained within the report of the Ombudsman’s investigation which was contained in the Agenda for the meeting.

 

Consideration was also given to evidence presented and representations made at the meeting.

 

Resolution (1)

 

Evidence on Behalf of the Ombudsman

 

-                      The evidence indicated that Community Councillor Sylvester failed to declare an interest and withdraw from meetings of the Community Council on 18th and 25th January, 2005 when financial matters relating to the Cricket Club were discussed.

-                      At a meeting on 1st February 2005, Community Councillor Sylvester failed to declare an interest when fees charged to the Cricket Club were being discussed.

-                      At a meeting of the Community Council on 3rd May, 2005, Community Councillor Sylvester declared an interest when the Cricket Club was discussed but declined to withdraw when asked to do so.

 

Evidence on Behalf of Community Councillor Sylvester

 

-                      Community Councillor Barlow did not dispute  that Community Councillor Sylvester failed to withdraw from the meetings in question.

-                      It was not the general practice of Community Councillor Sylvester to withdraw from meetings when matters concerning the Cricket Club were discussed.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester always declared an interest when matters relating to the Cricket Club were discussed.

-                      Successive Clerks to the Council had failed to provide proper advice to the Members of the Community Council.

-                      At no point was personal gain achieved by Community Councillor Sylvester.

 

Resolution (2)

 

Evidence on Behalf of the Ombudsman

 

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester declared an interest at the meeting of the Community Council on 3rd May, 2005 but failed to withdraw.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester failed to declare an interest at a meeting of the Community Council on 7th June 2005.

-                      Although Community Councillor Cox had stated that, in his view, Community Councillor Sylvester had probably voted at the meeting of the Community Council on 7th June 2005, the Ombudsman had concluded that there was insufficient positive evidence to support this allegation.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester failed to declare an interest or withdraw from the meeting of the Community Council on 7th June, 2005 when matters concerning payments to his brother were discussed.

 

Evidence on Behalf of Community Councillor Sylvester

 

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester stated that he did declare an interest at the meeting of the Community Council on 7th June, 2005 but did not subsequently challenge the accuracy of the minutes.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester admitted that he did not withdraw from the meetings of the Community Council on 3rd May and 7th June, 2005.

-                      This practice was symptomatic of the practice to be found in Sully Community Council at that time.

-                      It was accepted that Community Councillors should have withdrawn from the meetings.

 

Resolution (3)

 

Evidence on Behalf of the Ombudsman

 

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester had given the delivery agent the impression that he was acting with the knowledge and approval of the Council when he made the arrangement for the joint distribution of the Council Newsletter and Cricket Club leaflets.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester did not agree a separate price or separate invoicing arrangement with the delivery agent for the delivery of the Cricket Club leaflet.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester did not consult or inform his fellow councillors in advance of his arrangement with the delivery agent.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester did not give proper consideration to the interests of the Council as well as of the Cricket Club.

 

Evidence on Behalf of Community Councillor Sylvester

 

-                      The arrangement had been approved by the then Clerk to the Council.

-                      The Cricket Club leaflets had only been distributed within the Sully area of the Community Council.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester refuted the allegation of misconduct.

 

Resolution (4)

 

Evidence on Behalf of the Ombudsman

 

-                      Although Community Councillor Sylvester declared an interest in payments authorised by the Community Council for items supplied by Community Councillor Sylvester’s DIY store at meetings of the Community Council on 3rd December, 2002, 8th June, 2004 and 7th June, 2005, he remained in the meeting on each occasion.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester clearly had an interest in the payments in accordance with Paragraph 13(e) of the Code of Conduct.

 

Evidence on Behalf of Community Councillor Sylvester

 

-                      The practice of withdrawing from meetings had not been followed by Members of the Community Council for many years.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester had accepted the advice of the Clerk to the Council that he need not withdraw.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester’s DIY store was used by the Community Council as “supplier of choice”, and purchases were made in the full knowledge of all Members of Sully Community Council.

 

Resolution (5)

 

Evidence on Behalf of the Ombudsman

 

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester had instructed a contractor to commence works on the playing fields without obtaining the Community Council’s consent, and despite the Community Council’s standing order No. 63b which prohibited Members from issuing instructions.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester, in relation to both the unauthorised works and his dealings with the groundsman was bypassing the role of the Clerk or Acting Clerk in circumstances amounting to a failure to show respect and consideration.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester had used the resources of the Community Council, namely the services of the groundsman, improperly for the benefit of the Cricket Club.

-                      Evidence which indicated that Community Councillor Sylvester had asked the groundsman to undertake various works to areas used for cricket.

-                      The view that Community Councillor Sylvester should have taken greater care to avoid dealings with the groundsman which gave rise to confusion about what was required of him as an employee of the Community Council.

 

Evidence on Behalf of Community Councillor Sylvester

 

-                      The Cricket Club had instructed the contractor to undertake the works.

-                      The Cricket Club has issued an instruction to cease works as soon as the problem was identified.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester was not issuing instructions to the contractor in his capacity as Community Councillor but as a member of the Cricket Club.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester lived some 200 yards from the Cricket Club, and it was his practice to visit the Cricket Club often.  The groundsman, who had little experience of dealing with cricket greens, often asked Community Councillor Sylvester for advice.

-                      At no time were instructions issued to the groundsman by Community Councillor Sylvester.

-                      The allegations were refuted by Community Councillor Sylvester.

 

Resolution (6)

 

Evidence on Behalf of the Ombudsman

 

-                      Despite being granted a dispensation to speak at Community Council meetings on matters relating to the Cricket Club in June 2005, Community Councillor Sylvester failed to present it until a meeting on 10th January, 2006.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester had failed to declare an interest or rely on the dispensation at meetings of the Community Council on 10th January, 2006, 22nd November, 2005, 17th January, 2006, 24th January, 2006 and 7th February, 2006, and a meeting of an ad hoc sub group which met on 28th March, 2006.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester had spoken and voted on matters which he had been advised by the Monitoring Officer were not covered by the dispensation.

 

Evidence on Behalf of Community Councillor Sylvester

 

-                      The letter to Community Councillor Sylvester informing of the grant of dispensation stated that he was able to speak on any matters relating to the Cricket Club  i.e. the dispensation was unqualified.

-                      On receipt of the letter granting dispensation, Community Councillor Sylvester was of the belief that a copy of the letter had also been sent to the Clerk of Sully Community Council.

-                      It was now accepted that Community Councillor Sylvester’s understanding of the use of the dispensation was flawed.

-                      No guidance had been issued to Community Councillor Sylvester as to how the dispensation was to operate.

-                      Community Councillor Sylvester acted in good faith, although it was now accepted that he acted wrongly.

-                      It was clear from the minutes of the meetings that Community Councillor Sylvester did not vote at the meetings.

 

Resolution (7)

 

Having regard to the evidence and the powers available to the Committee pursuant to The Local Government Investigations (Functions of Monitoring Officers and Standards Committees) (Wales) Regulations 2001.

 

Resolutions (8 - 11)

 

To comply with the provisions of The Local Government Investigations (Functions of Monitoring Officers and Standards Committees) (Wales) Regulations 2001.

 

Resolution 12

 

To place on record the Committee’s view of the need for further training.