ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE
A BREACH OF THE CODE HAS BEEN FOUND
SANCTION
Reference:
CCN038/12
Complainant:
Mrs Patricia Francis
Subject Member:
Councillor James Flashman, Cornwall Council
Person conducting
the Assessment:
Matthew Stokes, Corporate Governance, Property
and Commercial Group Manager
Date of Assessment:
25 March 2013
Complaint
On 25 March 2013 the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from Mrs Patricia
Francis concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor James Flashman of Cornwall
Council. A general summary of the complaint is set out below:
That by his manner during two telephone conversations with the complainant on
11 September 2012 the subject member has:




failed to treat the complainant with respect;
bullied the complainant;
conducted himself in a manner contrary to the Council’s duty to promote and
maintain high standards of conduct; and
brought his authority or office into disrepute.
Decision
By hanging up the telephone during the first telephone conversation with the
complainant on 11 September 2012, the subject member has failed to treat the
complainant with respect and by doing so has breached paragraph 2.1 of the Code of
Conduct for Members of Cornwall Council.
I find no other breach of the Code of Conduct.
In relation to the finding of breach I consider it reasonable and proportionate to
request the subject member to either speak to the complainant or to write to her to
apologise for the conduct which I have determined constitutes a breach of the Code.
The subject member has already offered to make such an apology.
Reasons for the Decision
This complaint is a straightforward matter and can be determined without the need for
a formal investigation or for further information to be sought from any person. It is
one of those unfortunate situations where there are opposing views as to what was
said and the manner in which it was said. However, the subject member has had the
courtesy to confirm that during the first telephone conversation on 11 September
2012 he hung up the telephone on the complainant. That fact is therefore found
without further enquiries having to be made. In reaching my decision I have had
regard to all available information as submitted and to the views of the Independent
Person.
The subject member’s account of the two telephone conversations differs from the
complainant’s recollection. There are suggestions by both parries that the other may
not have been polite as might have been considered desirable or reasonable by the
other. Even if a formal investigation was conducted I consider it highly likely that I
would still be unable to determine with absolute certainty the content and tone of the
telephone conversations.
However, whilst there is no code of conduct relating to members of the public, there is
a Code of Conduct with which the subject member must comply. Whatever
provocation there may have been of the subject member, and I am not suggesting
that there was any, there remains an obligation to treat others with respect when
acting in his official capacity. Hanging up on the complainant mid-conversation is
sufficient to amount to disrespect. Whilst I appreciate that both parties are clear as to
their recollections of the telephone conversations, I consider it inappropriate for me to
reach any decision based on the content and tone of those conversations without
independent objective evidence. Given the nature of the complaint and the subject
member’s offer to apologise, I do not consider it appropriate to refer the complaint for
formal investigation as to do so would be disproportionate.
Without more I am unable to find a breach of paragraphs 2.3 (bullying), 2.5 (conduct
contrary to the duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct) or 2.10
(bringing the authority or office into disrepute).
I consider an apology to be an appropriate resolution alongside my finding of breach
of the Code of Conduct.
Right of review
At the written request of the subject member, the Monitoring Officer can review and is
able to change a decision to refer an allegation for investigation or other action. A
different officer to that involved in the original decision will undertake the review.
We must receive a written request from the subject member 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.
It should be noted reviews will not be conducted by the same person who did the
initial assessment.
What happens now?
This decision notice is sent to the complainants and the member against whom the
allegation was made.
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.
Matthew Stokes
Corporate Governance, Property and Commercial Group Manager
On behalf of the Monitoring Officer
Date: 26 March 2013