Agenda and minutes

The Sub-Committee considered whether the public interest lay in allowing the hearing to proceed in public or alternatively in closed session. Councillor Brierley, the Investigating Officer, and the Complainant were asked for representations in this respect. All parties stated that they believed that the hearing should proceed in public.

On the basis of the representations made, and to further transparency in the standards process generally, the Sub-Committee determined that it was in the public interest for the hearing to proceed in public.

Report of Assistant Director – Legal (Monitoring Officer) attached.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Investigating Officer, Linda Comstive, which requested Members to consider allegations against Councillor Brierley that he had breached the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct.

At the beginning of the hearing, Councillor Brierley advised that owing to a disagreement with his representative, he would not be represented but would instead represent himself.

Councillor Brierley stated that he had not received the papers for the hearing with adequate time to consider them properly.  Furthermore, as he was now representing himself, he wished to submit evidence that had not been circulated with the agenda. 

The Sub-Committee was advised that Councillor Brierley had been in receipt of the draft report from the Investigating Officer since 7 November 2018.  The report had been hand delivered to him.

Having taken representations from Councillor Brierley, the Investigating Officer and the Complainant, the Sub Committee agreed to allow the late submission of the following documents:

(1)  A newspaper article about the Ken Livingstone standards matter;

(2)  An annotated copy of the document from the report setting out former Councillor Carmichael’s Brighter Borough allocations;

(3)  A copy of the leaflet distributed in Hindley Green by Councillor Brierley;

(4)  A copy of a letter sent to Councillor Brierley by the Council regarding his iPad being removed by the police for an investigation; and

(5)  Three letters (Boys Brigade, St John’s Church and Hindley Green Football Club) confirming the receipt of grants.

Two other documents were rejected as irrelevant.

The Investigating Officer was also permitted to submit a more detailed breakdown of the Brighter Borough funding distributed by the Complainant (when he was a Councillor).

The Sub Committee considered the written and oral representations and, having consulted the Independent Person, it was resolved that on the balance of probability Councillor Brierley:

(a)          was acting in his capacity as a Councillor when he distributed a leaflet in Hindley Green regarding the Brighter Borough allocations of former Councillor Carmichael, and in which case the Council’s Code of Conduct applied to him at that time;

(b)          had not breached paragraph 3.1(b) of the Code of Conduct (you must not be abusive to any person);

(c)          had not breached paragraph 5 of the Code of Conduct (conduct bringing office into disrepute); and

(d)          had not breached paragraph 6(a) of the Code of Conduct (using position as a member improperly to confer advantage or disadvantage).

The Sub-Committee did find that although the behaviour of Councillor Brierley did not (on balance) meet the threshold for breach of the Code, the figures he set out in the leaflet were clearly incorrect and had not been properly researched. Councillor Brierley was not found to have acted in an intentionally dishonest or deceitful manner, but his behaviour had been both reckless and ill thought out, and the Sub-Committee would expect higher standards of behaviour. Further, whilst the figures could be misleading, the Sub-Committee did not believe that this improperly advantaged or disadvantaged the Complainant or any other party.

(Councillors Draper and Rigby declared  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.