In accordance with the decision of the Panel (minute 4(2)), the Investigator’s report has now been made public and can be viewed here.

To consider the Investigator’s Report and its 12 Appendices (attached).

To deal with the complaint in accordance with the attached Procedure.

Also in attendance at the meeting was the Subject Councillor, Councillor Louise Reecejones, the Complainants and the Investigator, who introduced her report.  The Panel considered the Investigator’s report and listened to all the representations made, the questions asked and the answers provided by the parties in attendance at the meeting.  Panel Members also asked a number of questions of the parties which were answered as appropriate. 

Councillor Reecejones, the Complainants, the Independent Person and the Investigator then left the meeting whilst the Panel reached its decision. 

DECISION

The Panel gave careful consideration to the Investigator’s Report, all relevant documentary evidence and the representations made by all the parties to this matter.

Panel was satisfied that a satisfactory investigation and report had been undertaken and produced in relation to all of the complaints. The Investigator had appropriately considered the evidence and afforded all the parties the opportunity to participate and adduce all relevant information and evidence for consideration.

The Panel examined in detail all the matters and issues arising from the complaints during the hearing and was satisfied that all the parties had been afforded a fair opportunity to clarify any specific points and ensure the Panel understood their respective positions and responses. 

The Panel will provide its full decision within the next seven days; however, will deliver its decision in respect of the complaints made this evening.

The Panel has noted there are a number of aggravating and mitigating factors arising in this matter which it has examined and considered in reaching its decision. Those factors will be set out in the full decision.

The Panel considered the representations of the Independent Person in reaching its decision. The Independent Person was satisfied that a thorough investigation was undertaken; and agreed with the findings and conclusions reached as detailed within the Investigator’s Report. 

On balance, the Panel found all the complainants and their evidence credible; whereas the Panel found the evidence of Councillor Louise Reecejones to be inconsistent, vague and misleading. The Panel did not therefore find Councillor Reecejones to be credible.

Accordingly the Panel:

1.  accepted the Investigator’s Report;

2.  agreed with all the conclusions of the Investigator as set out at paragraph 10.1 of the Investigator’s Report, namely:

a.  in respect of complainant 1, Tamsin Coates, the Panel found Councillor Reecejones to be in breach of the Code of Conduct in making an unjustified complaint to Tamsin Coates’ employer and pursuing her own personal agenda in her capacity as a councillor.

Councillor Reecejones failed to treat Tamsin Coates with respect and conducted herself contrary to the council's duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.

b.  in respect of complainant 2, Jessica Smyth, the Panel found Councillor Reecejones to be in breach of the Code of Conduct in making an unjustified complaint to the organisation for which Jessica Smyth volunteers and alleging that Jessica Smyth’s tweets and conduct amounted to harassment/stalking.

Councillor Reecejones failed to treat Jessica Smyth with respect and conducted herself contrary to the council's duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.

c.  in respect of complainant 3, Overchurch Residents Association, the Panel found Councillor Reecejones to be in breach of the Code of Conduct as a result of her failure to advise anyone (particularly the Police and the council’s Internal Audit team) that in her view the invoice in question was fraudulent and was an attempt to undermine the Association.

Councillor Reecejones failed to treat the Association with respect and conducted herself contrary to the council's duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.

d.  in respect of complaint 4, found Councillor Reecejones to be in breach of the Code of Conduct because she referred to the standards investigation in respect of this matter in a letter to Wirral Leaks which was subsequently repeated in Private Eye.

This was a breach of the duty of confidentiality arising under the Protocol for dealing with complaints against Members and contrary to the council's duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.

3.  agreed to refer the issues and concerns raised by the Investigator at paragraph 10.2 on page 72 of the Report, to the Council’s Monitoring Officer for consideration; and to determine whether any further action is necessary in relation to the issues raised.

SANCTIONS

The Panel having found Councillor Reecejones in breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct determined that the following sanctions be imposed (subject to any valid appeal being accepted):

(a)  The Monitoring Officer should write a formal warning letter to Councillor Reecejones reminding her of the need to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct;

(b)  Councillor Reecejones must apologise in writing to all the complainants for breaching the Members’ Code of Conduct within 14 days of receiving this Decision notice;

(c)  The Labour Political Group Leader be asked to consider whether party disciplinary action should be taken against Councillor Reecejones and whether she should be removed (through Council) from all outside bodies to which she has been appointed;

(d)  The Monitoring Officer shall arrange both internal and external training for Councillor Louise Reecejones as soon as practicably possible. Should Councillor Reecejones fail to attend the training arranged, the Monitoring Officer shall report this fact to her Political Group Leader for consideration and action; and

(e)  The Panel’s decision shall be reported to the next public meeting of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee for consideration.

The full decision is appended to these Minutes