ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE
NO FINDING OF WHETHER THERE IS A BREACH OF THE CODE
Reference:
CCN022/13
Complainants:
Subject Member:
Mr John and Mrs Pietryna Feesey; Mr and Mrs Brett
and Miss N Heaton
Councillor Russell Bartlett, Calstock Parish Council
Person conducting
the Assessment:
Simon Mansell – Principal Legal Officer, Corporate
Governance
Date of Assessment:
28 June 2013
Complaint
On 28 June 2013 the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from Mr and Mrs
Feesey; Mr and Mrs Brett and Miss Heaton concerning the alleged conduct of
Councillor Russell Bartlett of Calstock Parish Council. A general summary of the
complaint is set out below.
The Complainants have alleged that when Calstock Parish Council discussed planning
applications PA13/01963 and PA13/02030 (the Applications) as part of its public
participation at its meeting on 16 May 2013, Councillor Bartlett, when questioned on
who was telling the truth told a member of the public present to ‘shut up’ and then
stormed out of the meeting.
The alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct relate to:


failure to treat others with respect
bringing their office into disrepute
The Complainants, within their complaint, have also raised a number of concerns
regarding the Applications however, complaints made under the Code of Conduct can
only relate to the behaviour of an individual Councillor and therefore concerns
regarding the Applications fall outside of the scope of this assessment.
Decision
For the reasons set out below I make no finding that there has been a breach of the
Code of Conduct in relation to all elements of the allegation, as follows:


failure to treat others with respect
bringing their office into disrepute
Reasons for the Decision
The Complainants have provided sufficient information and the circumstances are
such as to enable this complaint to be assessed and determined without seeking out
further information or referring the complaint for investigation and the undertaking of
interviews.
In assessing this complaint I have had regard to the following information;



The complaint as made by the Complainants
The response to the complaint made by Councillor Bartlett;
The views of the Independent Person.
Prior to the meeting of the Parish Council on 16 May 2013 the Complainants have
stated that Councillor Bartlett promised a site meeting with Highways and Sheryl
Murray MP but then advised the Complainants that he could not get hold of anyone
from Highways, though comments made by Councillor Bartlett would indicate this was
not the case.
Further to this the Complainants have stated that when the Parish Council considered
the Applications; Councillor Bartlett, when questioned on who was telling the truth,
told an objector to the Applications to shut up and then stormed out of the meeting.
Councillor Bartlett in responding to the complaint has stated that at no time did he
say he would organise a site meeting with Sheryl Murray and that he was always
responded to Highways and took all issues raise up with them. Councillor Bartlett
denies telling an objector to ‘shut up’ but has stated that the Complainants and other
objectors took it upon themselves at the meeting on 16 May 2013 to throw insults at
Councillor Bartlett and called him a liar.
2.1 Failure to treat others with respect.
While a Councillor is required, when conducting themselves in their official capacity, to
be respectful to others, this does not mean that a Councillor cannot defend
themselves if accusations are made. The issue of the Applications is clearly an
emotive one to the Complainants and it is clear that, at the meeting held on 16 May
2013, they were seeking to take Councillor Bartlett to task for, as they perceived
them, failings on his part. However, by verbally attacking Councillor Bartlett and by
calling him a ‘liar’ in a public forum it would appear that the normal rules of debate
were not complied with. Councillor Bartlett was both entitled to defend himself from
the accusations and to remove himself from the debate due to what he saw as
inflammatory and untrue statements.
Given that the normal rules of the debate do not appear to have been followed, the
minutes of the meeting refer to a ‘heated’ discussion and that Councillor Bartlett was
subject to a verbal assault by the Complainants; while Councillor Bartlett would have
been better served by either allowing the Chair to respond to the Complainants or
withdrawing from the meeting and making no comment; I do not consider that
Councillor Bartlett’s actions at the meeting on 16 May 2013 amount to a failure to
treat others with respect.
2.11 Bringing your office into disrepute. The Complainants have made several
accusations concerning Councillor Bartlett actions prior to the meeting on 16 May
2013 and at the meeting itself. With regards to the actions prior to the meeting I do
not consider that by these Councillor Bartlett has brought his office into disrepute.
While the Complaints hold one set of very strong views on his actions, the contrary
view is that many of the actions were dealt with. It is noted that it would appear that
Councillor Bartlett had been expressing concern over the site but then took a different
view at the Council meeting. While it is appreciated that there was an expectancy on
the part of the objectors to the scheme that certain actions would be taken; a
Councillor does not, if he does not believe these actions to be the right ones, then
have follow them.
With regards to the actions on the night of the 16 May 2013 it is necessary to take an
objective view of the meeting. While all those who hold public office are subject to
public scrutiny this does not allow the public to verbally attack them. I do believe
that rather than responding to the Complainants in a manner which could be seen as
potentially challenging, Councillor Bartlett should have allowed the Chair to control the
Complainants or withdraw from the meeting. However I also consider in taking an
objective view of the proceedings; that a reasonable person would view Councillor
Bartlett’s actions as proportionate in the circumstances. I therefore do not consider
that by his actions on the night of 16 May 2013 Councillor Bartlett has brought his
office into disrepute.
What happens now?
This decision notice is sent to the Complainants, the member against whom the
allegation has been made and the Clerk to Calstock Parish Council.
Right of review
At the written request of the complainant, the Monitoring Officer can review and is
able to change a decision not to refer an allegation for investigation or other action.
To ensure impartiality in the conduct of the review different officers to those involved
in the original decision will undertake the review.
We must receive a written request from the complainant to review this decision within
28 days from the date of this notice, explaining in detail on what grounds the decision
should be reviewed.
If we receive a request for a review, we will write to all the parties mentioned above,
notifying them of the request to review the decision.
Additional help
If you need additional support in relation to this or future contact with us, 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 Disability
Discrimination Act 2000.
We can also help if English is not your first language.
SJR Mansell MBE
Principal Legal Officer
On behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Date: 5 July 2013