Agenda and draft minutes

The Sub-Committee noted that the Subject Member, Cllr Derrick, whilst invited, had chosen not to attend the meeting.   She had however submitted written comments for the meeting on 19 January.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Sub-Committee excluded the public from the hearing because the public interest in doing so outweighed the public interest in disclosing personal information. Members were informed that the Subject Member had expressed that she would prefer the hearing to be in public. However, the information contained in the agenda and any discussion of the details of it in the meeting would include personal information of other parties, namely the complainants. The complainant for PC47 had asked that the hearing of that complaint be in exempt session. The complainant for PC32 also on balance was more comfortable with the hearing taking place in exempt session. The complainant for PC52 had not expressed a firm view. The Sub-Committee agreed that as the complaints contained personal information of identifiable individuals it would be appropriate to hear the matter in exempt session.

RESOLVED -

that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Paragraph 1    Information relating to an individual

This was an investigation into three complaints that Councillor Derrick (the Subject Member) had breached the Hughenden Parish Council Code of Conduct. (the Code).

PC 32 – Complaint 1

This complaint was made by an employee who has since left the Parish Council. The complaint alleged that on 14 May 2021, Cllr Derrick made unreasonable demands of the officer to see documentation held by the Council, despite Cllr Derrick having been informed that this was contrary to the Council’s previous resolutions. The employee felt that Cllr Derrick disrespected the employee’s role and felt bullied by her into providing the file on Cllr Derrick’s terms and not on the Council’s.

PC 47 – Complaint 2

This complaint was made by a Hughenden Parish Councillor (since resigned). The complaint was two-fold. 1) That, as in PC 32, Cllr Derrick made unreasonable demands of the employee on 14 May 2021 to access the documentation 2) That Cllr Derrick made unreasonable criticisms of the same employee in online blog posts.

PC 52 – Complaint 3

This complaint was made by a second employee, who has since left the Parish Council. The complaint was that Cllr Derrick unreasonably required that any meetings between Cllr Derrick and the employee be recorded or witnessed by a third party. The employee considered this to be disrespectful of her role and that the behaviour was tantamount to bullying and harassment of her.

CONSIDERATION BY THE HEARING SUB-COMMITTEE

All parties confirmed that they had read all the written material submitted with the agenda and listened to all the evidence, witnesses and submissions.

In terms of the process, the hearing followed Buckinghamshire Council’s ‘Contested Hearing Procedure’ which had been circulated in advance to all parties and was included at page 3 of the agenda. 

1)         The Chairman of the Hearing Sub-Committee introduced all persons present.

2)         The Deputy Monitoring Officer (on behalf of the Monitoring Officer) outlined the pre-hearing process and the considerations that had led the matter to come before the Hearing Sub-Committee, including consultation with the Independent Person, Mr Dobson at Stage 2. He advised that Joe Thomas had been appointed as an independent investigator by the Monitoring Officer to investigate the complaints, at Stage 3 of the Council’s Arrangements for dealing with complaints against members.  Mr Graham noted that, within Cllr Derrick’s submission, there was reference to the Subject Member having no confidence in BC’s competence, integrity and impartiality in managing BC’s complaints processes. The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that, notwithstanding an initial delay in the processing of PC 32 and PC 47, the process had been followed as set out in Buckinghamshire Council’s Arrangements for dealing with complaints against councillors and that a response had been given to all of the queries about the process raised by Cllr Derrick as they occurred.

3)         At the invitation of the Chairman, the Investigating Officer presented his report on each of the complaints dealing first (at the invitation of the Chairman) with PC32 and the first part of PC47,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.