8 July 2013
______
Reference:36138 (CCN019/13)
DECISION NOTICE
RELATING TO ALLEGATIONS OF BREACHES OF THE
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS OF CORNWALL COUNCILBY
COUNCILLOR COLLIN BREWER
______
Richard Williams,
Head of Legal, Democratic and Procurement Services and Monitoring Officer for Cornwall Council
Contents
Introduction
Preliminary issues
Substantive findings
Sanctions
Additional comments
Introduction
As Monitoring Officer of Cornwall Council, it is my responsibility in accordance with the Council’s Ethical Standards process to formally respond to the Investigation Report (‘the Report’) issued on 18 June 2013 by Matt Stokes, Corporate Governance, Property and Commercial Group Manager with the Council’s Legal Service and the duly appointed Investigating Officer in respect of the complaint made against Councillor Collin Brewer.
Preliminary issues
Before setting out my decision in respect of the substantive issues and recommendations contained in the Report, I need to address two important procedural issues.
Firstly, in undertaking the assessment and investigation of the complaint made against Councillor Brewer, the Investigating Officer and myself have acted in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Investigation and Post Investigation Procedures (‘the Procedures’) approved by the Council’s Standards Committee. In particular, Councillor Brewer has been given a full and proper opportunity to comment on the allegations and the draft Report and the views of the Independent Person and the Standards Committee have been sought and considered. To the extent that any Procedures have not been followed to the letter, a judgement has been made that it is in the public interest that there has been a departure and that the rights of Councillor Brewer in respect of this process have not been prejudiced. These allegations have caused exceptional media interest and widespread public concern and it is important that those concerns are addressed quickly whilst observing due process, to the extent necessary.
The second issue relates to the disclosure of the Report. This Decision Notice is a public document. However, in order for the reasoning behind the decision-making to be fully understood, it would be necessary for me to repeat large sections of the Report. It is therefore sensible for me to cross-reference my findings to relevant paragraphs of the Report. In doing so, the Report becomes part of this Decision Notice and is, therefore, also disclosable.
Even if I had determined to draft my Decision Notice entirely independent of the Report, I would have ruled that the Report shall be made available to the public. I have balanced the usual requirement that the Report be kept confidential with the fact that 1) much of the information is already in the public domain and 2) given the widespread level of concern and interest in this complaint which I have already referred to, the public interest in disclosing the Report outweighs the public interest in protecting the rights of Councillor Brewer and any other individual named in the Report by keeping the contents confidential.
I would, for the avoidance of doubt, confirm that although the Investigating Officer is employed within the Legal Service of Cornwall Council and is therefore under my line management, the Report was drafted without reference to me and the conclusions and recommendations are those of the Investigating Officer. That said, as a general observation, I consider the Report to be robust, factually accurate and fair and therefore have no difficulty in relying on its content to support my conclusions and decision-making.
Substantive findings
Before referring to my specific findings, I would like to emphasise that, in addition to the Report, I have carefully considered the response from Councillor Brewer to the draft Report received by the Investigating Officer on 25 June and the comments made by the members of the Standards Committee in relation to the draft Report, at their meeting on 27 June. It was extremely helpful that, whilst being respectful of Councillor Brewer’s long and committed public service, the Committee were unanimous in their support of the findings set out in the Report and endorsed the recommendations in terms of the sanctions that the Council is empowered to impose or recommend.
My specific findings are as follows. (References to paragraphs are references to the numbered paragraphs of the Report):
- Councillor Brewer was bound by the provisions of Cornwall Council’s Member Code of Conduct for the reasons set out at Paragraphs 2.5 and 4.1.
- I am satisfied that, at the time of the telephone conversation with John Pring, Councillor Brewer was obliged to comply with the Code of Conduct because he conducted himself in such a way that a third party could reasonably conclude that he was acting as a Memberof the Council for the reasons set out at Paragraph 4.5.
- It is clear to me that Councillor Brewer is guilty of serious breaches of the Code of Conduct in accordance with the reasoning set out and evidence referred to in Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2.
Sanctions
1.Councillor Brewer is hereby formally censured for the outrageous and grossly insensitive comments he made in his telephone conversation with John Pring on 8 May 2013. Such comments are entirely inconsistent with the standards expected of a Cornwall Councillor and have brought the Council and the office of a Cornwall Councillor into disrepute and have caused damage to the reputation of Cornwall itself (Paragraphs 4.9 to 4.14, 6.1 and 6.2).
2.I require Councillor Brewer to make a formal apology as to the gross offensiveness of his comments and for the significant distress they have caused.
(I note the comments set out at Paragraph 7.3 of the Report but whilst I understand that there may be questions asked about the sincerity of such an apology, it is my responsibility to require Councillor Brewer to respond in an appropriate manner to the nature of the breaches he has committed. A formal apology is clearly one of those appropriate sanctions. It is a matter for Councillor Brewer to issue the apology and for others to judge its credibility.)
3.I shall arrange training for Councillor Brewer on the Code of Conduct and in dealing with the media. The training will focus on the damage that can be caused when the provisions of the Code are breached and when inappropriate and/or offensive comments are made, whether in the media or otherwise. It is expected that Councillor Brewer will attend this training (Paragraph 7.6(e)).
4.I recommend to the Group Leaders of Cornwall Council that whilst Councillor Brewer remains a Member of Cornwall Council he should not be allocated a seat on any of the Council’s Committees that deal or might deal with issues relating to disabled children or other vulnerable members of the community (Paragraph 7.6(b)).
5.I recommend to the Council and the Leader that Councillor Brewer should not be nominated as the Council’s representative to any outside bodies that are involved in the provision of services or support to disabled children or other vulnerable members of the community, either as their principal purpose or as part of their routine business (Paragraph 7.6(c)).
(I note from his letter of 25 June 2013 that Councillor Brewer would not be interested in such an appointment even if it was offered to him.)
6That Councillor Brewer does not have access to those parts of Council premises from where services to disabled children are directly provided, managed or commissioned (Paragraph 7.6(d)).
(Concern was expressed by some members of the Standards Committee that this sanction could be regarded from one perspective as either tokenistic or, from another, unduly punitive. In endorsing this recommendation set out in the Report, I am mindful that the Council is a Corporate Parent to children who are within its care and by making such offensive comments, Councillor Brewer has failed to act in a way compatible with that Member role and therefore access to premises directly providing services to disabled children would neither be required nor appropriate. I note also, however, that Councillor Brewer believes this recommended sanction to be unduly harsh and I have therefore modified the recommendation to delete the reference to ‘other vulnerable groups’ as, although there is merit in the Investigating Officer’s recommendation, I consider this to be unnecessary and unduly restrictive.)
7.I will facilitate a meeting between the Interim Chief Executive, Councillor Brewer and such other senior officers as the Interim Chief Executive shall determine so that it may be explained in the clearest possible terms to Councillor Brewer the Council’s position on and commitment to the provision of services to disabled children and other vulnerable groups, the critical importance of the Council’s role in Safeguarding and to Equality and Diversity (Paragraph 7.6(a)).
(I am pleased to note that Councillor Brewer shall attend, and indeed welcomes, such a meeting.)
8.I recommend that the Council issue a press release to coincide with publication of this Decision Notice. Such Notice shall include the following statements:
- The Council completely dissociates itself with the offensive views expressed by Councillor Brewer;
- The Council is positively committed to the Equality and Diversity agenda;
- Clarification of the limited sanctions available to the Council in respect of Councillor misconduct; and
- Such other statements as may assist in restoring public confidence in Cornwall Council and the services it provides to disabled children and other vulnerable groups (Paragraph 7.6(f)).
Additional comments
As I indicated earlier in this Decision Notice, this complaint has aroused exceptional concern and media attention and it is therefore important that I make the following additional observations:
- As the Monitoring Officer, I recognise that the Council has a duty of care towards each of its Members and,whilst strongly condemning his comments, I appreciate that Councillor Brewer has been put under considerable strain and pressure through the maelstrom that his remarks have created. I am satisfied that the Council’s senior management and the Chief Executive, in particular, whilst condemning Councillor Brewer’s comments in the strongest possible terms have provided a level of professional and personal support consistent with that duty of care and this will continue for so long as he remains a Member.
- The Investigating Officer makes important comments about the limitation of sanctions available to the Council in relation to Member misconduct, at Paragraph 7.4 of the Report. I endorse those comments and, had the powers still been available to me, I would have either recommended suspension of Councillor Brewer or would have referred the matter to the First Tier Tribunal who would have had wider powers of sanction available to them. Whilst those are extremely serious measures, in exceptional cases, such measures are justified and there is no doubt that the absence of those powers has been a source of frustration to the Standards Committee and a source of disbelief to many of those who have complained and the wider public.
- It is undoubtedly the case that the most powerful deterrent and response to inappropriate conduct on the part of Members is the condemnation by other Members. The role of the Standards Committee in this process, therefore, has been extremely important and helpful. Two issues, in particular, they considered to be most material. The first was that this was the second time that such offensive comments had been made and secondly, in the response sent by Councillor Brewer to the draft Report, there appeared to be a lack of understanding of the damage he had done and any real remorse for the distress he had caused. I share those concerns and they have been factors in the sanctions I have decided to impose, as has the fact that Councillor Brewer has previously served on the Standards Committee and understands, therefore, the importance of high standards of Member conduct.
Page1