Agenda item

To consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s Investigation Report (previously circulated) regarding an allegation of non-compliance with the Council’s Code of Conduct together with representations received from the former Councillor subject of the allegation, and to make a final determination on the matter.

The Chair extended a warm welcome to Ms. Annie Ginwalla, Investigating Officer – Public Services Ombudsman for Wales who was in attendance for this item.  All present were introduced and the manner and order of proceedings was explained.  Members confirmed that they had previously received copies of the Ombudsman’s Investigation Report and the opportunity to study the documentation in advance.

 

The Committee was asked to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s Investigation Report regarding an allegation that former County Councillor Allan Pennington had failed to comply with the Council’s Code of Conduct together with any representations made by former Councillor Pennington in respect of those findings, and to make a final determination in relation to the matter.  Mr. Pennington was not in attendance at the meeting and had failed to respond to correspondence from the Council or provide any written representations in response to the Ombudsman’s findings.  The Monitoring Officer advised that in preparation for the hearing Mr. Pennington had been written to on two occasions – the second letter had been sent via recorded delivery and signed for on receipt although the signatory had not been clear.  On that basis the Committee was satisfied that in all probability Mr. Pennington had received notice of the hearing and all the necessary documentation.  Consequently the Committee agreed to proceed with the hearing in Mr. Pennington’s absence.

 

Ms. Annie Ginwalla, Investigating Officer presented the Ombudsman’s report on the investigation.  She detailed the allegations, legal background and relevant legislation, and provided an analysis of the evidence obtained during the investigation including disputed facts together with conclusions made.

 

In summary the Committee was advised of the following –

 

·        a complaint had been received that former Councillor Pennington had failed to observe the Code of Conduct for members of Denbighshire County Council on 8 December 2010, when he attended a meeting of the Licensing Committee.  It was alleged that the former Councillor should have declared a personal interest at this meeting as a consequence of his employment as a taxi driver when a matter concerning the Private Hire vehicle testing regime was discussed and voted upon

·        the former Councillor denied that he had an interest and that he participated in the voting on the items concerned.  Evidence received from members and staff present at the meeting confirmed that the former Councillor did not declare an interest; he was involved in the discussions and was included in the voting on a number of proposals concerning the taxi trade

·        the investigation concluded that the business conducted at the meeting related to or was likely to affect former Councillor Pennington’s employers and had the potential to affect his employment also, thereby giving rise to a personal and prejudicial interest.  The investigation also identified that former Councillor Pennington failed to update his statutory register within 28 days of commencing his employment as a taxi driver in July 2008

·        on the basis of the evidence obtained during the investigation, the Ombudsman was satisfied that former Councillor Pennington’s conduct may have breached paragraphs 10(1), 11(1), 14(1)(a) and 15(2) of the Code.  Consequently the report had been referred to the Monitoring Officer for consideration by the Council’s Standards Committee.

 

The Ombudsman’s concern regarding allegations made by former Councillor Pennington against council officers during the investigation was also highlighted.  Those claims had been perceived as malicious and an attempt to undermine officers and their evidence.  It was a matter for the Committee to determine whether the former Councillor had breached paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code by having brought the office of member into disrepute by his conduct during the investigation.

 

In response to questions Ms. Ginwalla confirmed it was appropriate for the Committee to consider any further potential breaches of the Code identified during the investigation process.  She also confirmed that former Councillor Pennington had been made aware of the potential breach of paragraph 6(1)(a).

 

The Committee retired to deliberate in private on the representations as to matters of fact and whether former Councillor Pennington had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.  After a discussion of all the issues raised, in particular the disputed facts as detailed in paragraph 52 of the Investigation Report, the Monitoring Officer announced their unanimous findings of fact that former Councillor Pennington –

 

·        had participated in the voting on the matters decided at the meeting

·        had a personal interest in items 3, 4 & 5 of the meeting

·        should have been aware of that interest and declared it during the meeting

·        did have a prejudicial interest in items 3, 4 & 5 of the meeting

·        should not have remained at the meeting

·        failed to update his statutory register of members’ interests in accordance with his obligations under paragraph 15(2) of the Code.

 

The Committee then considered whether, based on the facts it had found, former Councillor Pennington had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.  In applying the findings of fact the Committee found breaches of paragraphs 10(1), 11(1), 14(1)(a) and 15(2) of the Code of Conduct.

 

The Committee also considered whether there had been a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) and had been particularly concerned in respect of this allegation.   Based on former Councillor Pennington’s conduct during the investigation as described within the report and detailed within the appendices to the report the Committee unanimously agreed that his conduct did amount to a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a).

 

The reasons for the Committee’s decision had been based on the Ombudsman’s representations detailed within the Investigation Report and the Committee had concurred with those submissions.  In terms of the unfounded allegations made by the former Councillor against council officers the Committee was also keen to express their confidence in those officers.

 

At this point Ms. Ginwalla, Investigation Officer was invited to make representations as to whether or not the Committee should apply a sanction and what form any sanction should take.  She advised that the Ombudsman felt it would be appropriate to impose a censure in the circumstances to reflect the serious nature of the breaches and serve as a reminder to the former Councillor and other councillors the importance of the Code and the responsibility the Code places upon them.  As Mr. Pennington was no longer a councillor sanctions were limited otherwise a more severe sanction would have been sought.  The Chair sought clarification regarding the application of a sanction to particular breaches and the Monitoring Officer advised the Committee to consider the conduct in totality as opposed to individual breaches.  He detailed the process to be followed if a sanction was to be imposed and publication of the Committee’s decision.

 

The Committee retired to deliberate in private on the representations that former Councillor Pennington should be censured.  In view of the nature of the breaches, particularly with regard to the breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code the Committee unanimously concluded that there should be a public censure of former Councillor Allan Pennington.  The Committee was keen to highlight that they would have imposed a more severe sanction if that option had been available to them.

 

RESOLVED that former Councillor Allan Pennington be publicly censured.

 

The reasons for the decision were that the Committee had unanimously agreed with the reasons detailed in the Ombudsman’s Investigation Report for both the findings of fact and breaches of the Code of Conduct.

 

The Chair thanked Ms. Ginwalla for her comprehensive report and presentation.

 

At this juncture (11.30 a.m.) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.