White Feather Council fails to act.
Local Social Media has once again uncovered that Pontius Pilate has an office in County Hall in Morpeth complete with a handbasin and by the look of things the officers responsible for sorting serious complaints can no longer be contacted except by a ‘bot’ according to a long serving Councillor from Rothbury.
Its a specifically designed ‘bot’ that may or may not relay messages to guys and gals grafting hard to support their bosses so that the stacks of officers paid more than £100,000 per year can sit back in their armchairs situated in London’s leafy suburbs and never be inconvenienced to turn up at work as it might be too much bother. The Council has a new all encompassing powerful Leader to sort things in Morpeth.
A complaint under the 2010 Equality Act has been submitted to the Council explaining the homophobic actions of a Councillor.
The Council’s response is in paraphrase “when is a councillor a councillor?”
Its the sort of unbelievable spin from sailors whose boats carry too much ballast and have become impossible to rock. Or have they put their telescope up to Nelson's blind eye.
The Council has shown that a huge yellow streak exists and public protection, something every taxpayer should expect has been tipped out with the baby and its bathwater. Children’s Services should begin a search immediately.
Our regulars should read on and see what a jolly mess their council has fallen into:
From Chris Curran Complainant.
The reply I received after reporting the councillor to the monitoring officer
We write in response to the standards complaint you have submitted relating to Councillor Natalie Rolls.
The first stage the Council has to undertake is to determine whether we have powers granted by statute to process the complaint. The issue in this respect is whether Councillor Rolls was acting in her capacity as a Councillor when she posted the messages in question online. If we determine that we do have power under the legislation (ie jurisdiction), we would then determine whether the evidence provided within the complaint reaches the required threshold for formal investigation.
We have now concluded our initial assessment and have determined that no further action should be taken because the Council does not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
The reasons for this decision are as follows:
Acting in the Capacity of a Councillor
The governing legislation, setting out the powers of local authorities to process complaints into Member behaviour are set out in the Localism Act 2011. Particularly s.27(2) of that Act states:
…a relevant authority must, in particular, adopt a code dealing with the conduct that is expected of Members and co-opted Members of the authority when they are acting in that capacity.
We have highlighted the pertinent wording in the above extract. This sets out the legislative provision that for a local authority to be able to process a complaint then the Councillor must have been acting in their capacity as a Councillor. The code of conduct will apply when a Councillor is carrying out their official duties, for example when they are considering or discussing council business, either as a Councillor or representing the council on an outside body. For something to fall within the code there must be a clear link to a local authority function or the role as a Councillor. For example, an argument with a neighbour which does not relate to local authority business would not engage the code, even if the neighbour happens to know that the person is a Councillor and therefore complains to the local authority about being treated disrespectfully.
It is also possible for someone to be given the impression that a person is engaged in local authority business. For example, if someone attempt to misuse their position as a Councillor to seek to gain an advantage for themselves someone close to them. A number of factors will need to be taken into account to determine whether or not you had used or attempted to use your position as a Councillor. Examples of this could be:
writing to someone on local authority headed paper or using a local authority email address may lead someone to assume you were writing in your capacity as a Councillor
handing out a business card where you describe yourself as a Councillor may also lead to that assumptionwearing official local authority regalia
There has been an amount of judicial consideration of this issue, and it is clear from decisions that the actions complained of must relate in some way to Council business, and that this is to be construed narrowly.
With regards to messages on social media, if a Councillor describes themselves as such in a social media post or in their username or profile, it does not mean that every posting made would be covered by the Code. There must be a link within the individual posting or thread to the role as a Councillor or to local authority business. The converse is also true, just because a person may not describe themselves as a Councillor does not mean that a post cannot fall within the scope of the Code if local authority business is being discussed.
We are assisted here by guidance issued by the Local Government Association (LGA). The LGA produced a model code of conduct for elected Members which the Council’s code of conduct follows. Guidance was also issued to assist with interpretation of the mode code of conduct. The LGA guidance states the following:
Simply describing yourself as a Councillor in a social media posting or at the top of your page or in your username or profile, for example, does not of itself mean that every posting you make is covered by the Code. There must be a link within the individual posting or thread to your role as a Councillor or to local authority business. However, even if you do not describe yourself as a Councillor you may fall within the scope of the code if you are discussing local authority business.
For example, a posting which is simply discussing a recent football match is not covered by the code even if you have described yourself as a Councillor. However, if you make a posting threatening a fellow Councillor or officer that would fall within the code even if you have not described yourself as a Councillor as it relates to local authority business or your role as a Councillor.
In the circumstances, Councillor Rolls has described herself as a Councillor in her username for the account. However, the guidance stated above confirms that this is not enough. It does not mean that everything posted on this account relates to Council business. The subject of the posts is the RNLI and a flag that they are displaying. This is not on Council owned land, it is on private property and does not relate to council business or any business Councillor Rolls is undertaking on behalf of the Council. Accordingly on the evidence submitted, we must conclude that the Council does not have powers under the relevant legislation to process this matter through our arrangements and will take no further action in respect of it.
Please note that there is no right of appeal against this decision. If you consider that your complaint has not been properly considered properly, you may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman or make an application to judicially review the decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment