PSOW Individual Decisions

The Ombudsman received a complaint from a member of the public that a Member (“the Member”) of Mumbles Community Council (“the Council”) had verbally abused them on social media. The investigation considered whether the Member failed to comply with the following provisions of the Code of Conduct: 4(b) – You must show respect and consideration for others. 4(c) – You must not use bullying behaviour or harass any person. 6(1)(a) – You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute. The investigation considered evidence from the Council.  Witnesses provided witness evidence.  Copies of the comments on social media were also obtained.  The Member was invited to take part in an interview as part of the investigation, but the Member chose not to take part. The investigation found that the Code of Conduct did not apply entirely to the situation complained about.  Accordingly, the Ombudsman did not consider that the evidence was suggestive of a breach of paragraphs 4(b) or 4(c) of the Code of Conduct.   The Ombudsman found that the Member’s conduct was suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct. The report on this investigation was referred to the President of the Adjudication Panel for Wales for adjudication by a tribunal. The Adjudication Panel for Wales concluded, on the basis of the findings of fact, that the Member had not failed to comply with paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Code of Conduct.

The Ombudsman received 2 complaints from the then-Chair of Mumbles Community Council (“the Council”) that a Former Councillor had breached the Council’s Code of Conduct.  It was alleged that the Former Councillor had submitted a series of vexatious complaints to my office which had been targeted against a small group of the Council’s members.  It was further alleged that the Former Councillor covertly recorded a confidential session of a Council meeting and offered to play the recording to a member of the public. The Ombudsman found that the Former Councillor had made 9 complaints about Council members to her office in 7 months.  The Ombudsman considered none of the complaints to have merit, that some were frivolous while others were malicious and/or vexatious, which may amount to a breach of paragraph 6(1)(d) of the Council’s Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman found that the Former Councillor recorded a confidential session of a Council meeting but concluded that no evidence had been provided that the Former Councillor had shared the recording with a member of the public.  However, the Former Councillor had messaged a member of the public and offered to play the recording for him, which may have brought her office and the Council into disrepute, suggestive of a breach of paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Council’s Code of Conduct. The Ombudsman concluded that the Former Councillor’s conduct may amount to breaches of paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(d) of the Council’s Code of Conduct and referred her report to the Monitoring Officer of Swansea Council for consideration by its Standards Committee. The Standards Committee decided that the Former Councillor had breached paragraphs 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(d) of the Code of Conduct.  It decided to censure the Former Councillor and noted that, had the Former Councillor remained a member of the Council, it would have suspended the Former Councillor for 6 months.