London Borough of Hounslow The Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN
Committee Services
If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Frankie Belloli on 020 8583 2064 or at [email protected].
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
A meeting of the Standards Committee will be held in the Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow on Tuesday, 14 October 2003 at 6.30pm
MEMBERSHIP
Cherna Crome - Chair Councillors Cheema, Clarke and Miss Reid.
AGENDA
1. Apologies for absence, declarations of interest or any other communications from Members
2. Reference from the Standards Board for England (Pages 1 - 27)
DECLARING INTERESTS
Committee members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter.
M.J. SMITH DISTRIBUTION: Council Members Chief Officers Public Press Assistant Chief Executive (Legal)
6 October 2003
Agenda Item 2
STANDARDS COMMITTEE – 14TH OCTOBER 2003
The Local Authorities (Code of Conduct) (Local Determination) Regulations 2003 Reference from the Standards Board for England
Report by: the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal)
Summary
Following the completion of an investigation into a complaint made to the Standards Board for England, the Report of the Ethical Standards Officer has been finalised and referred to the Council’s Standards Committee for consideration.
In accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee at its last meeting, consideration must now be given to the findings and conclusion of the Ethical Standards Officer. The Committee will then need to decide what further action, if any, needs to be taken, either by way of action against the Member or by way of broader advice to the Authority about such matters. The Report sets out in brief terms the legal and other background, a brief summary of the issues including the complaint, and appends the process for consideration of the Ethical Standards Officer’s Report. A copy of the Report is also attached.
Recommendations
1. a) That the Standards Committee considers the Report of the Ethical Standards Officer into the complaints made against Councillor John Connelly. b) That the Committee hears any representations and evidence given in support of Councillor Connelly’s response, in accordance with the procedure appended to the Report. c) That the Committee determine what action, if any, it is necessary to take in the light of their consideration and hearing of any representations. d) That the Committee determine any further recommendations to the Council as it considers necessary.
1 Standards Committee 14th Oct.
1. Legal Background
1.1 The Local Government Act 2000 introduced new requirements with regard to the maintenance of ethical standards by elected members of Local Authorities. In particular the Act (and Regulations under the Act) required Local Authorities to adopt a new Member Code of Conduct with regard to standards of behaviour; and set out a new framework to deal with alleged breaches of such Code of Conduct by means of investigation and reporting under the supervision of the Standards Board for England.
1.2 The Council adopted a new Member Code of Conduct in accordance with a recommended model, at its meeting on the 26th of March 2002.
1.3 As reported at the last meeting of the Committee, complaints of alleged breaches of the Code must, in the first instance, be considered by the Standards Board for England which will decide whether or not an investigation is warranted. Investigations are conducted by or under an Ethical Standards Officer appointed by the Standards Board. Following the introduction of the Local Determination Regulations in June 2003, it is now open to an Ethical Standards Officer to decide that following completion of his or her investigation, the nature of the complaint and the degree of seriousness are such that any report may be considered at local level and the determination of any action decided by Local Standards Committees.
1.4 The Standards Board has issued guidance to Local Authorities with regard to the local determination of such matters. A copy has previously been provided to Members and further copies will be available at the meeting. The guidance contains model procedures with regard to pre-hearing processes and for the conduct of a Standards Committee Hearing into the allegations and the report of the Ethical Standards Officer. A copy of the model hearing procedure was adopted at the last meeting of the Standards Committee and a copy is appended to this report as Appendix 1.
2. The Process prior to the Hearing
2.1 A complaint against Councillor Connelly was lodged with the Standards Board in May 2002 and the allegations concern an incident or incidents at the Local Elections Count on the 2nd of May 2002.
2.2 The Standards Board then referred the complaints to an Ethical Standards Officer for investigation. The investigation appears to have been somewhat protracted but included personal or telephone interviews with various elected Members and others between September 2002 and June 2003.
2.3 Councillor Connelly was apparently made aware of the general nature of the complaints in June 2002. He was interviewed by the Investigating Officer on the 15th of January 2003. Councillor Connelly was also given an opportunity to comment on the Investigating Officer’s draft report and did so by letter of the 11th of June 2003.
2 Standards Committee 14th Oct. 2.4 The Ethical Standards Officer’s report (Appendix 2) was concluded and formally referred to the Council on the 29th of July 2003 for determination in accordance with the Local Determination Regulations.
2.5 Consistent with the Standards Board Guidance for a pre-hearing process, a copy of the report was passed to Councillor Connelly in order that he could indicate whether or not he disagreed with any of the findings of fact in the Ethical Standards Officer’s report.
Subsequently Councillor Connelly has indicated:-
i) that he did wish to be present and make representations at the hearing by the Standards Committee; ii) that he would make representations on his own behalf at the hearing; iii) that he wished to call a substantial number of witnesses; iv) that he concurred with the Ethical Standards Officer’s view that the hearing, the report and any background papers should be in the public domain. v) Councillor Connelly has also indicated those areas of contention within the Findings of Fact in the Ethical Standards Officers report.
2.6 Copies of Councillor Connelly’s letters of the 25th of August and 29th of September 2003 are background documents.
2.7 Councillor Connelly’s response has been reported to the Standards Board, but to date there is no indication that the Ethical Standards Officer wishes to be represented at the Committee hearing.
3.0 The Model Hearing Procedure
3.1 The Guidance from the Standards Board indicates that Standards Committees should adopt procedures which are fair, open and transparent. The Committee has already adopted the model procedure by the Standards Board at its last meeting. A copy of the procedure is appended to the report.
3.2 Whilst the procedure is reasonably self-explanatory, in any given case it is open to the Committee to adapt the procedure to meet circumstances at the time – again consistent with fairness, openness and transparency.
3.3 Subject to the above, the procedure – in the briefest summary – requires:-
• An introduction to the Standards Board Report by the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal) including a summary of the key points. • Any questions for clarification by the Committee. • An opening statement by the Member concerned. • Questions of the Member by the Committee. • To hear any witnesses called by the Member, followed by questions by the Committee. • A statement in conclusion by the Member concerned.
3 Standards Committee 14th Oct. 3.4 At any point, the Committee may decide that it would like to hear evidence from other persons not present at the hearing.
3.5 At the conclusion of the hearing, Members should then retire to consider their decision, to indicate the findings of fact upon which their decision is based, and if possible to indicate that decision on the day of the hearing. A written decision should follow promptly.
3.6 The Standards Board Guidance indicates that:-
i) Standards Committees must control their own procedure and may not need to consider any evidence of the allegations other than the ESO’s report. ii) Standards Committees should not need to re-open the investigation. iii) Subject to fairness, the Committee may limit the number of witnesses and the evidence which is presented. iv) Normally it is suggested that hearings should be conducted in public.
4. Summary of the Complaint
4.1 Full details of the allegations and the investigation by the Ethical Standards Officer are contained in Appendix 2 to the report. These include the Final Report, Findings of Fact and Summaries of the Evidence.
4.2 As Members will see, the original complaint was lodged in May 2002 and there are 5 allegations concerning Councillor Connelly’s behaviour on the night of the 2nd of May 2002 (the evening of the Election Count).
Most importantly, Members of the Committee must understand that the Final Report of the Investigating Officer, and indeed the supporting statements, necessarily deal with the entirety of the original allegations. However the Ethical Standards Officer has concluded that no action is necessary in respect of the first 4 allegations and these have not, therefore, been referred to the Standards Committee for determination. The Standards Committee has no powers in respect of these first 4 allegations. For practical purposes, it was impossible to separate out from the papers the details of these first 4 allegations which run throughout the documents; but in coming to a decision Members of the Standards Committee should put out of the mind the fact of the those allegations, which must not be allowed to influence Members in reaching a decision.
4.3 The allegation which is referred to the Standards Committee for determination is:
“That the Member conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his Office or Authority into disrepute by behaving in a drunken and abusive manner.”
The allegation is summarised starting at paragraph 2.9 of the Ethical Standards Officer’s report. His findings of fact begin at paragraph 4.48; and the reasoning behind the Ethical Standards Officer’s conclusion that Councillor Connelly did behave in a drunken manner are contained at paragraph 6.21 to 6.31 of the report.
4 Standards Committee 14th Oct.
Again, importantly, Members should note that that part of the allegation which refers to abusive behaviour has not been substantiated and is not before the Committee for determination.
4.4 The allegations are set out in the Ethical Standards Officer’s report. Witness statements, interview records, Councillor Connelly’s responses, and the Code of Conduct are background papers to the ESO’s report.
4.5 In accordance with the Standards Board’s Guidance, Councillor Connelly has been asked whether or not he disputes any of the findings of fact in the Ethical Standards Officer’s report. His response, by letter of the 25th of August 2003, indicates a number of areas of disagreement although none of the areas of disagreement touch directly on the single allegation which is before the Standards Committee.
5. Determination of the Issues
5.1 In considering its decision, the Committee will wish to pay careful attention to the Ethical Standards Officer’s report, the evidence which he considered and the evidence which supports his conclusion:-
“that Councillor Connelly failed to comply with paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct by conducting himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his Office or Authority into disrepute by being drunk during the Election Count.”
The Committee’s attention is drawn to Councillor Connelly’s written responses to the Investigator in Document NM2 and NM25 and the notes of interview at NM11 which are background documents to the ESO’s report. Members will also need to take account any representations which are made by Councillor Connelly at the hearing and the evidence of any witnesses that are called.
5.2 Having weighed the evidence and the submissions, Members will need to reach a decision and to determine what further action, if any, should be taken. This may include:
i) to call for further evidence or information to assist a determination; ii) that no further action is called for;
that in accordance with the sanctions available under the Act,
iii) censure the Member; iv) restrict the Member’s access to the resources of the Authority for up to 3 months; v) suspend or partly suspend the Member for up to 3 months; vi) suspend or partly suspend the Member for up to 3 months with conditions i.e. in relation to the giving of an apology, retraining or conciliation.
5.3 Following the determination, the Committee must arrange to publish a summary of its findings, the reasons, and details of any sanction imposed.
5 Standards Committee 14th Oct.
5.4 Depending on the decision of the Standards Committee, the Member has a right to apply in writing to the President of the Adjudication Panel for England for permission to appeal against that finding.
Contact: M.J. Smith, Assistant Chief Executive (Legal) Telephone: 0208 583-2022 Background Papers: This report has been or is due to be considered by:
All material referred to in the Report. The Standards Committee
This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: N/A
---
6 Standards Committee 14th Oct. Model Hearing Procedures for the Standards Committee
Interpretation 1. ‘Member’ means the member of the authority who is the subject of the allegation being considered by the Standards Committee, unless stated otherwise. It also includes the member’s nominated representative.
2. ‘Investigator’ means the Ethical Standards Officer (ESO) who referred the report to the authority, and includes his or her nominated representative. In the case of matters that have been referred for local investigation, references to the investigator mean the Monitoring Officer or other investigating officer, and his or her nominated representative.
3. ‘Committee’ also refers to ‘a standards sub-committee’.
4. ‘Legal advisor’ means the officer responsible for providing legal advice to the Standards Committee. This may be the Monitoring Officer, another legally qualified officer of the authority, or someone appointed for this purpose from outside the authority.
Representation 5. The member may be represented or accompanied during the meeting by a solicitor counsel or, with the permission of the committee, another person.
Legal advice 6. The committee may take legal advice from its legal advisor at any time during the hearing or while they are considering the outcome. The substance of any legal advice given to the committee should be shared with the member and the investigator if they are present.
Setting the scene 7. After all the members and everyone involved have been formally introduced, the Chair should explain how the committee is going to run the hearing.
Preliminary procedural issues 8. The committee should then resolve any issues or disagreements about how the hearing should continue, which have not been resolved during the pre-hearing process.
Making findings of fact 9. After dealing with any preliminary issues, the committee should then move on to consider whether or not there are any significant disagreements about the facts contained in the investigator’s report.
10. If there is no disagreement about the facts, the committee can move on to the next stage of the hearing.
11. If there is a disagreement, the investigator, if present, should be invited to make any necessary representations to support the relevant findings of fact in the report. With the committee’s permission, the investigator may call any necessary supporting witnesses to give evidence. The committee may give the member an opportunity to challenge any evidence put forward by any witness called by the investigator.
12. The member should then have the opportunity to make representations to support his or her version of the facts and, with the committee’s permission, to call any necessary witnesses to give evidence.
13. At any time, the committee may question any of the people involved or any of the witnesses, and may allow the investigator to challenge any evidence put forward by witnesses called by the member.
14. If the member disagrees with most of the facts, it may make sense for the investigator to start by making representations on all the relevant facts, instead of discussing each fact individually
15. If the member disagrees with any relevant fact in the investigator’s report, without having given prior notice of the disagreement, he or she must give good reasons for not mentioning it before the hearing. If the investigator is not present, the committee will consider whether or not it would be in the public interest to continue in his or her absence. After considering the member’s explanation for not raising the issue at an earlier stage, the committee may then: Stds.Cttee. Hearing Procedures 7
a. Continue with the hearing, relying on the information in the investigator’s report. b. Allow the member to make representations about the issue, and invite the investigator to respond and call any witnesses, as necessary; or c. Postpone the hearing to arrange for appropriate witnesses to be present, or for the investigator to be present if he or she is not already.
16. The committee will usually move to another room to consider the representations and evidence in private.
17. On their return, the Chair will announce the committee’s findings of fact.
Did the member fail to follow the Code? 18. The committee then needs to consider whether or not, based on the facts it has found, the member has failed to follow the Code of Conduct.
19. The member should be invited to give relevant reasons why the committee should not decide that he or she has failed to follow the Code.
20. The committee should then consider any verbal or written representations from the investigator.
21. The committee may, at any time, question anyone involved on any point they raise in their representations.
22. The member should be invited to make any final relevant points.
23. The committee will then move to another room to consider the representations.
24. On their return, the Chair will announce the committee’s decision as to whether or not the member has failed to follow the Code of Conduct.
If the member has not failed to follow the Code of Conduct 25. If the committee decides that the member has not failed to follow the Code of conduct, the committee can move on to consider whether it should make any recommendations to the authority.
If the member has failed to follow the Code 26. If the committee decides that the member has failed to follow the Code of Conduct, it will consider any verbal or written representations from the investigator and the member as to:
a. whether or not the committee should set a penalty; and b. what form any penalty should take.
27. The committee may question the investigator and member, and take legal advice, to make sure they have the information they need in order to make an informed decision.
28. The committee will then move to another room to consider whether or not to impose a penalty on the member and, if so, what the penalty should be.
29. On their return, the Chair will announce the committee’s decision.
Recommendations to the authority 30. After considering any verbal or written representations from the investigator, the committee will consider whether or not it should make any recommendations to the authority, with a view to promoting high standards of conduct among members.
The written decision 31. The committee will announce its decision on the day and provide a short written decision on that day. It will also need to issue a full written decision shortly after the end of the hearing. It is good practice to prepare the full written decision in draft on the day of the hearing, before people’s memories fade.
Stds.Cttee. Hearing Procedures 8
CONFIDENTIAL
SBE 153.02
REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 59 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 BY NICK MARCAR ETHICAL STANDARDS OFFICER, INTO AN ALLEGATION CONCERNING MAYOR JOHN CONNELLY, A MEMBER OF HOUNSLOW COUNCIL
28 July 2003
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
9
Contents
1 Executive Summary
2 Summary of allegations and conclusions on whether there have been failures to comply with the Code of Conduct
3 The Code of Conduct
4 Ethical Standards Officer’s Findings of Fact
5 Evidence
6 Reasoning as to whether there have been failures to comply with the Code of Conduct
7 Schedule A - List of exhibits
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
10
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Allegation: That a member conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by making threats to spit on the Queen.
1.2 Allegation: That a member conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by being so drunk that he fell on top of the Labour Party Agent.
1.3 Allegation: That a member conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute and also failed to treat another member with respect by shouting ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’ at him.
1.4 Allegation: That a member conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute and also failed to treat another member with respect by being abusive towards him.
1.5 Allegation: That a member conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by behaving in a drunken and abusive manner.
1.6 Finding: With regard to the allegations in 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 above, that no action needs to be taken in respect of matters which are the subject of the allegations.
1.7 Finding: With regards to the allegation in 1.5 above, my finding is to refer the matter to the Monitoring Officer of the relevant authority for determination by the Standards Committee.
2 Summary of allegations and conclusions on whether there have been failures to comply with the Code of Conduct
Allegation that Councillor Connelly threatened to spit on the Queen
2.1 Councillor Ellar, a member of Hounslow Council, alleged that Councillor John Connelly conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by making threats to ‘spit on the Queen’. The incident occurred on 2 May 2002 during the election count.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
11
2.2 I conclude that Councillor Connelly has failed to comply with paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct by conducting himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by threatening to spit on the Queen.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly fell on top of the Labour Party Agent
2.3 Councillor Ellar also alleged that Councillor Connelly conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by falling on top of the Labour Party Agent when he was drunk. The incident occurred on 2 May 2002 during the election count.
2.4 I conclude that Councillor Connelly has not failed to comply with paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct and did not bring his office or authority into disrepute by his actions towards the Labour Party Agent.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly made abusive comments to another member
2.5 Councillor Ellar further alleged that Councillor Connelly conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute and also failed to treat Councillor Luke Kirton with respect by shouting ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’ at him during the announcement of the election results on the evening of 2 May 2002.
2.6 There is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that Councillor Connelly has failed to comply with paragraphs 2(b) and 4 of the Code of Conduct by conducting himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute or that he failed to treat Councillor Luke Kirton with respect.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly was abusive towards another member
2.7 Councillor Ellar alleged that Councillor Connelly conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute and also failed to treat Councillor Mark Bowen with respect by being abusive towards him on the evening of 2 May 2002.
2.8 I conclude that Councillor Connelly did not fail to comply with paragraphs 2(b) and 4 of the Code of Conduct in his behaviour towards Councillor Mark Bowen.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
12
Allegation that Councillor Connelly behaved in a drunk and abusive manner on the evening of 2 May 2002
2.9 Councillor Ellar also alleged that Councillor Connelly conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by being drunk during the election count on the evening of 2 May 2002.
2.10 I conclude that Councillor Connelly failed to comply with paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct by conducting himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by being drunk during the election count.
3 The Code of Conduct
3.1 Members of Hounslow Council adopted the model Code of Conduct on 26 March 2002.
3.2 Paragraph 2(b) of the Code of Conduct states that:
“A member must treat others with respect”
3.3 Paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct states that -
“A member must not in his official capacity, or any other circumstance, conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute.”
4 Ethical Standards Officer’s Findings of Fact
Allegation that Councillor Connelly threatened to spit on the Queen
4.1 Hounslow Council held its local elections on 2 May 2002 with the count at the Civic Centre, Hounslow. The Mayor at that time was Councillor Mohinder Gill and the leader of the Council was Councillor John Connelly.
4.2 The political party controlling the Council at that time was the Labour Party and due to the close results of the evening, Labour members were concerned that they might lose so many seats that they would lose control of the Council. As a result, it was suggested that the members were anxious and tensions were running quite high.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
13
4.3 Councillor Ellar stated that during the evening, there was an informal gathering of Labour Party members in the Mayor’s Office. He said that he was in the Mayor’s Office with Mayor Gill, Councillors Chatt, Dhillon, Hughes, Mr Alan Keen MP, Mr Noel Murphy, and Mr David Keen and they were discussing the emerging results of the elections.
4.4 He said that Councillor Connelly, who seemed to have consumed a vast amount of alcohol, walked into the room and initially spoke with Councillor Chatt.
4.5 Councillor Ellar stated that he heard Councillor Connelly, who was only a yard or so away from him at the time, say “when I get to be Mayor, I’ll spit on the Queen.” Councillor Ellar said that he considered the statement to be a threat. Councillor Ellar said that Councillor Connelly’s wife was present with him in the Mayor’s Office during the evening but not at the time Councillor Connelly made this remark.
4.6 He said that the method for selecting the Mayor had recently changed. It was previously on an elected basis, but it was changed so that the member with the longest service automatically became Mayor. Councillor Ellar stated that, at the time, Councillor Connelly had the longest service. He, therefore, thought that Councillor Connelly was inferring that if he was not elected as the leader of the Council, when he became Mayor as a result of his long service, he would take action to discredit the Labour Party by spitting on the Queen when she visited the Borough later that year.
4.7 Councillor Gill, the Mayor at the time of the incident, said that Councillor Connelly was in the Mayor’s Office with his wife. When asked whether Councillor Connelly appeared to be drunk, Councillor Gill stated that ‘everyone appeared to be drunk that night’.
4.8 He further stated that Councillor Connelly appeared pleasant enough when he entered the room and then proceeded to talk to Councillor Chatt. Councillor Gill recalled hearing part of the conversation about the loss of votes, but he did not hear anything else.
4.9 Councillor Chatt recalled Councillor Gill inviting members to his Office. However, he said that Councillor Connelly entered the room alone and without invitation.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
14
4.10 He further stated that Councillor Connelly appeared to be drunk and unstable on his feet. He said that Councillor Connelly then came over to talk to him and during the conversation said that he would spit on the Queen when he became Mayor. In response to the question whether this was a private comment made only to him, Councillor Chatt stated, “It was a general statement to everybody in the room, he kind of moved back a bit and wobbled around and then made that statement”
4.11 Mr Alan Keen MP, who was also in the room at the time, described Councillor Connelly as being in a belligerent mood. However he did not recall hearing the alleged comments about the Queen.
4.12 Mr Noel Murphy was in the room at the time and stated that Councillor Connelly entered the room with his wife. Councillor Connelly appeared to be drunk. However, Mr Murphy did not recall hearing Councillor Connelly making the alleged comments as there were other conversations in the room.
4.13 Councillor Connelly stated that he entered the Mayor’s Office with his wife on invitation from Councillor Gill and knocked on the closed door before entering.
4.14 Councillor Connelly denied saying that “he would spit on the Queen”. He said that he spoke mainly to Councillor Gill and would have been reprimanded at the time if he said anything untoward.
4.15 Of the nine people reported as being in the room at the time of the alleged incident, seven people were interviewed. Three of these did not hear or recall the conversation between Councillors Connelly and Councillor Chatt and were unable to conclusively state that Councillor Connelly did not make the comment. Councillor Hughes stated that he was not in the room at the time of the incident. Councillors Ellar and Chatt stated that Councillor Connelly said that he would spit on the Queen.
4.16 Although there is a history of antagonism between Councillor Ellar and Councillor Connelly, the alleged comment was made to Councillor Chatt, whose evidence supported the allegation. In light of this, and from the evidence available, I conclude that Councillor Connelly did say that he would “spit on the Queen”.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
15
Allegation that Councillor Connelly fell on top of a Labour Party Agent
4.17 Councillor Ellar alleged that Councillor Connelly was so drunk that he fell on top of the Labour Party Agent, Ineza Hussain, who was working at a table during the election count. He stated that he did not witness the incident, but had been told about it by Elizabeth Hughes, Local Government Committee Secretary.
4.18 Elizabeth Hughes said that Councillor Connelly was holding a bottle of whisky in his hand when he tripped over his feet and fell on Ms Hussain. She said that Ms Hussian probably would not remember the incident as it was so minor.
4.19 Ms Hughes further stated that she may have mentioned this incident in passing to Councillor Ellar.
4.20 Ms Hussain stated that no such incident took place.
4.21 Councillor Connelly stated that he was unaware of any such incident taking place.
4.22 The allegation made by Councillor Ellar is disputed by both Councillor Connelly and Ms Hussain. The two parties involved in the alleged incident. On the evidence available I conclude that the allegation is unsupported.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly made abusive comments to another member
4.23 Councillor Ellar stated that Councillor Chatt reported to him that during the announcement of the result for the Brentford Ward, Councillor Connelly stood behind Mrs Ann Keen and shouted “racist” and “facist” at the winning candidate, Councillor Kirton. Councillor Chatt’s evidence to my investigation supports this.
4.24 Councillor Ellar said that there were a large number of football supporters cheering Councillor Kirton when the result was announced.
4.25 Mrs Ann Keen MP said she was standing in front of Councillor Connelly when the results were announced for the Brentford Ward. She stated that Councillor Connelly made derogatory comments to Councillor Kirton, however she did not recall what was actually said.
4.26 She also stated that Councillor Connelly’s behaviour was such that it made her feel anxious.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
16
4.27 Mrs Keen further stated that as soon as she became aware of Councillor Connelly’s behaviour she tried to shield him from the cameras and indicated to other Members that Councillor Connelly was behaving inappropriately. In addition to this, Mrs Keen stated that Councillor Connelly had to be escorted away from the area.
4.28 Mr Noel Murphy was also present at the time and stated that he heard Councillor Connelly shout ‘traitor’. After hearing this comment, he stood between Mrs Keen and Councillor Connelly.
4.29 Mr Murphy further stated that he later spoke to Councillor Connelly and told him that he was ‘out of order’ and to ‘sort himself out’.
4.30 Councillor Kirton stated that although Councillor Connelly appeared to be drunk, he was not offensive or rude.
4.31 Councillor Kirton also stated that a video showing his path to victory was produced. This video shows the announcement of the results for the Brentford Ward on election night and he believed that it should show any inappropriate behaviour by Councillor Connelly.
4.32 Councillor Valerie Lamey stated that Councillor Connelly was standing behind her when the results were announced. She said that they were standing in a group with other members and although there were some people shouting, Councillor Connelly was not saying anything.
4.33 Councillor Ron Bartholomew stated that when the results were announced, the supporters of Councillor Kirton were all cheering. He said that there was also some jeering and light hearted heckling from other members including Councillor Connelly but it was not in any way offensive.
4.34 Ms Laurie Lopez, Political Assistant to the Labour Group, who was also present when the results for the Ward were announced, stated that there was some general heckling from members and did not recall that Councillor Connelly was involved.
4.35 Mr Peter Dodkin, a former Mayor of the Borough, stated that when the results were announced there was a ‘media scrum’ and therefore it was very difficult to tell if anyone was being offensive.
4.36 Councillor Connelly stated that he may have heckled the winner when he made his speech but this was nothing unusual as most members were doing this. Councillor Connelly stated that he did not remember what he said, but stated that a video was made of the results by the winning member’s party and this film should show any untoward behaviour.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
17
4.37 Councillor Connelly also stated that he was not spoken to by any other Member with regards to his behaviour.
4.38 My investigator obtained a copy of the election video referred to above. This video is a promotional video produced to highlight Councillor Kirton’s progress through the election. The actual footage of the results of the count does not last very long and is predominantly focused on Councillor Kirton. As a result of this, it is inconclusive in respect of Councillor Connelly’s behaviour.
4.39 Councillor Connelly denied the allegation. Some of the people present during the incident did not hear Councillor Connelly use the words “racist” and “facist”, but considered his behaviour to be inappropriate. However, other people interviewed stated that Councillor Connelly either heckled in a light hearted manner or did not say anything at all. In light of the conflicting evidence, I have been unable to conclude that Councillor Connelly acted in the manner alleged by Councillor Ellar.
4.40 Subsequent to issuing a draft of this report Councillor Ellar told my investigator that he had spoken to Mr Murphy who had told him he did in fact hear Councillor Connelly shouting ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’. I have not sought clarification on this point from Mr Murphy as given his evidence set out in paragraph 4.28 above I consider this only adds to the clarifying evidence I have received in relation to this issue and would not enable me to reach a different conclusion.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly was abusive towards another member
4.41 Councillor Ellar alleged that Mr Alan Keen’s son, David Keen, reported to him that later on in the evening, Councillor Connelly was holding a bottle of whisky in his hand and was either arguing or being ‘quite forceful’ with Councillor Mark Bowen. He stated that he did not witness the incident.
4.42 He said that Councillor Connelly had to be dragged away by Mr David Keen, who took the bottle of whisky away from him and placed him in a car to take him home.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
18
4.43 David Keen stated that when he saw Councillor Connelly talking to Councillor Bowen towards the end of the evening, Councillor Connelly was holding a bottle of whisky in his hand. He said that due to the presence of the media and the public, he took the bottle away from Councillor Connelly and, as he was very drunk, put his arm around him for support and guided him down a set of stairs which led to the front of the building. Mr Keen said that he needed to take Councillor Connelly away before anyone saw him. Councillor Connelly was not being abusive or aggressive.
4.44 Councillor Mark Bowen stated that he only spoke to Councillor Connelly once that evening when they exchanged pleasantries. The conversation was relaxed and Councillor Connelly did not have a bottle of whisky in his hand.
4.45 Councillor Gill stated that after the count, which finished early the following morning, both he and Councillor Connelly left the Civic Centre together. He said that he gave Councillor Connelly a lift home.
4.46 Councillor Connelly said that he does not really know Councillor Bowen. He stated that the only time he had a bottle of whisky in his hand during the evening was when he was taking a bottle from the Members’ room to the Mayor’s Chamber.
4.47 The allegation made by Councillor Ellar is disputed by Mr David Keen, Councillor Bowen and Councillor Connelly. Both Councillors stated that they only met once during the evening and Councillor Bowen said the conversation was relaxed. On the evidence available, I conclude that Councillor Connelly did not act in the manner alleged.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly behaved in a drunk and abusive manner on the evening of 2 May 2002
4.48 Councillor Ellar stated that he tried to avoid Councillor Connelly during the evening, however, he said that every time Councillor Connelly returned to the Mayor’s Chamber he appeared more drunk.
4.49 Councillor Ellar said that although he had not seen Councillor Connelly this drunk before, he did not behave in a loud or boisterous manner.
4.50 Councillor Hughes stated that he was drinking in a public bar with Councillor Connelly prior to going to the election count at the Civic Centre.
4.51 He said that when he later saw Councillor Connelly at the Civic Centre, they had a minor confrontation in the Members’ area. Councillor Hughes said that they had both drunk a lot by this time.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
19
4.52 Ann Keen MP said that Councillor Connelly’s behaviour became more aggressive during the evening as the results were announced.
4.53 Councillor Luke Kirton stated that Councillor Connelly appeared to be drunk and seemed to be physically supported by his colleagues.
4.54 Alan Keen MP, who was in the Mayor’s Chambers when Councillor Connelly entered, described Councillor Connelly’s mood as belligerent.
4.55 Councillor Mark Bowen stated that Councillor Connelly appeared to have been drinking but said he was not unpleasant or disturbing in any way.
4.56 Councillor Gill stated that ‘everyone appeared to be drunk that night’.
4.57 Mr David Keen stated that Councillor Connelly was completely drunk by the end of the evening and had to be assisted when leaving the Civic Centre. He added that when he saw Councillor Connelly, he was not aggressive or abusive to anyone.
4.58 Ms Elizabeth Hughes stated that by observing the manner in which Councillor Connelly was walking around during the evening he appeared to be very drunk. She said that she saw him “swigging” from a bottle of whisky that he had been holding for most of the evening.
4.59 Councillor Lamey stated that Councillor Connelly appeared to have consumed a large amount of alcohol during the evening and added that this was no different to most of the other members who were also present. She said that Councillor Connelly was talking a lot which was often an indication that he had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol and added that he was not behaving in an offensive or abusive manner.
4.60 Councillor Bartholomew stated that he talked to Councillor Connelly a few times during the evening. He said that a lot of members, including himself and Councillor Connelly, were drinking after the count but nobody was behaving in an abusive manner.
4.61 He said that Councillor Connelly had a ‘wind-up’ style when talking to people and if the recipient of his comments was also drunk, the comments could easily be misconstrued as being offensive.
4.62 Ms Lopez stated that she spoke with Councillor Connelly a couple of times during the evening. She said that she saw him bring a bottle of whisky to the Civic Centre and later, in the early hours of the following morning, recognised that he was drunk because his face was very red. She said that a lot of other people also appeared to be drunk and nobody, including Councillor Connelly was rude or abusive.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
20
4.63 Mr Dodkin stated that when he spoke with Councillor Connelly during the evening, although Councillor Connelly appeared to have consumed a lot of alcohol, he was not abusive and his behaviour was “nothing out of the ordinary”.
4.64 Mike Smith, the Monitoring Officer and also the Returning Officer at the count, was present throughout the evening and stated that he spoke to Councillor Connelly on one occasion and he seemed fine. He further said that the principal focus of his attention was on the proper management of the count and although there were 500 members and public present he was not aware of any public recognition of drunken or abusive behaviour.
4.65 Councillor Connelly stated that he went to the pub before going to the Civic Centre for the election count.
4.66 He said that he was drinking alcohol during the evening and stated that it was common knowledge that alcohol was available in either the Mayors Chamber or the political party offices.
4.67 By his own admission, Councillor Connelly stated that he consumed alcohol on the evening on 2 May 2002. He was witnessed to be walking around with a bottle of whisky in his hand and from the seventeen people interviewed, although fourteen have said that he appeared to be drunk, only four have indicated that his behaviour was inappropriate.
4.68 The weight of evidence, therefore, suggests that although Councillor Connelly was drunk during the evening, he did not behave in an abusive manner.
5 Evidence
5.1 My Investigator has sought information from Mike Smith, Monitoring Officer, Councillors Ellar, Connelly, Gill, Bowen, Chatt, Hughes, Lamey, Bartholomew, Ms Laurie Lopez, Mr Peter Dodkin, Ann Keen MP, Alan Keen MP, Mr Noel Murphy, Mr David Keen, Ms Elizabeth Hughes and Ineza Hussain.
5.2 The evidence that has been relied upon is listed at Schedule A.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
21
6 Reasoning as to whether there have been failures to comply with the Code of Conduct
Allegation that Councillor Connelly threatened to spit on the Queen
6.1 Both Councillor Connelly and Councillor Ellar have told my investigator that there has been a history of disagreements between them and with regard to this particular allegation, Councillor Connelly has denied saying that he would ‘spit on the Queen’. However, Councillor Chatt in addition to Councillor Ellar, has stated that he heard Councillor Connelly make the comment.
6.2 While other witnesses who have given evidence have stated that they either did not hear or could not recall the alleged comment. I have concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Councillor Connelly made a statement to the effect that he would spit on the Queen.
6.3 The Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001 specifies the principles which are to govern the conduct of members of relevant authorities in England. The tenth principle is “Leadership” which states,
“Members should promote and support these principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence”
6.4 By threatening to “spit on the Queen”, I do not consider that Councillor Connelly, as Leader of the Council, acted in a way that secured or preserved public confidence.
6.5 I further consider that Councillor Connelly’s behaviour was inappropriate for an experienced Member and the Leader of the Council. In light of the fact that the comment made concerned a proposed offensive act against the Queen, I consider that Councillor Connelly failed to adhere to the tenth principle of the Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001.
6.6 I, therefore, consider that Councillor Connelly conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by threatening to spit on the Queen and failed to comply with paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct.
6.7 However, in making my finding I have considered the fact that this appears to be an isolated incident, the comment was made in a private meeting with other Members of the same party present and it was heard by only two people.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
22
6.8 In these circumstances, my finding is under Section 59(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, that no further action needs to be taken in respect of this matter.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly fell on top of a Labour Party Agent
6.9 Elizabeth Hughes stated that she witnessed Councillor Connelly falling on Ineza Hussain and may have mentioned this incident to Councillor Ellar.
6.10 Ineza Hussain and Councillor Connelly both stated that the alleged incident did not occur and, thus, the allegation made by Councillor Ellar is unsubstantiated. However it was her evidence that the matter was minor.
6.11 I, therefore, consider that Councillor Connelly did not fail to comply with paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct.
6.12 Accordingly, I find that under Section 59(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, that no further action needs to be taken in respect of this matter.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly was abusive towards another member
6.13 Councillor Connelly stated that he heckled Councillor Luke Kirton, but considered this to be normal behaviour during a successful candidate’s speech. A number of witnesses indicated that Councillor Connelly was not offensive or abusive towards Councillor Kirton, but other witnesses indicated that Councillor Connelly’s behaviour was inappropriate. There is little consensus as to what was actually said and the manner in which it was said, and in view of the conflicting evidence I am unable to conclude whether Councillor Connelly failed to comply with paragraphs 2(b) and 4 of the Code of Conduct.
6.14 Accordingly my finding is under section 59(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 2000: that no further action needs to be taken in respect of this matter.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly made abusive comments to another member, Councillor Mark Bowen.
6.15 Both Councillors Bowen and Connelly did not recall the alleged incident taking place.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
23
6.16 Mr Keen, who mentioned the incident to Councillor Ellar, said that Councillor Connelly was not aggressive or abusive when he was talking to Councillor Bowen.
6.17 Councillor Mark Bowen stated that he spoke to Councillor Connelly on one occasion during the evening on 2 May 2002 and said the conversation was relaxed and they exchanged pleasantries.
6.18 Councillor Connelly stated he does not really know Councillor Bowen.
6.19 I therefore conclude that Councillor Connelly has not failed to comply with paragraphs 2(b) and 4 of the Code of Conduct by conducting himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute and by failing to treat Councillor Bowen with respect.
6.20 Accordingly, my finding is under Section 59(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, that no further action needs to be taken in respect of this matter.
Allegation that Councillor Connelly behaved in a drunk and abusive manner in the course of the evening
6.21 Of the seventeen people interviewed, fourteen indicated that Councillor Connelly appeared to be drunk on the evening of 2 May 2002.
6.22 By his own admission, Councillor Connelly said that he had been drinking during the evening and furthermore, stated that he was not in a position to dispute the allegation that he was drunk.
6.23 One member stated that Councillor Connelly seemed in a ‘belligerent’ mood and another stated that Councillor Connelly had a bottle of whisky in his hand and his behaviour deteriorated during the evening.
6.24 In addition to this, Councillor Connelly was described to be ‘unstable on his feet’ and at one stage, ‘physically supported by his colleagues’.
6.25 Nine of the people interviewed, who all stated that Councillor Connelly appeared to be drunk, also stated that on the occasions that they met him, he was not unpleasant, offensive or abusive in any way.
6.26 One member also explained that due to Councillor Connelly’s manner of speaking and his ‘wind-up’ style, if the person speaking to him was also drunk then any comments made by Councillor Connelly could easily be construed as offensive.
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
24
6.27 Mr Mike Smith stated that Councillor Connelly seemed fine. However, I do not consider this to be an accurate reflection of Councillor Connelly’s behaviour during the evening as Mr Smith briefly met Councillor Connelly on only one occasion. The fact that there had not been any public complaints against Councillor Connelly of drunkenness or abusive behaviour does not detract from the fact that others present at the election count may still have witnessed this sort of behaviour.
6.28 Councillor Connelly is an experienced member and was Leader of the Council at the time of the elections. I consider that he consumed enough alcohol that he not only needed to be physically supported by colleagues, but behaved in such a manner that his behaviour was commented upon by some members. In addition to this, Councillor Connelly was drunk at a public meeting in full display of other councillors, members of the press and public, which I consider adds to the gravity of the situation. However, some of the other witnesses did not find Councillor Connelly’s behaviour offensive or abusive and on the basis of the evidence available I am unable to conclude whether Councillor Connelly behaved in an abusive manor.
6.29 I consider that Councillor Connelly failed to adhere to the tenth principle of The Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001 as he did not act in a way that secured or preserved public confidence. I, therefore, believe that by being drunk during the evening of 2 May 2002, it could reasonably be regarded that Councillor Connelly brought his office or authority into disrepute.
6.30 I, therefore, conclude that Councillor Connelly failed to comply with paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct.
6.31 Given the above circumstances my finding under section 59 (4)(c) of the Local Government Act 2000 to refer the matter to the Monitoring Officer of Hounslow Council for determination by the Standards Committee of the Council.
Nick Marcar Ethical Standards Officer 28 July 2003
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
25
7. Schedule A - Exhibits
7.1 NM1 Allegation letter from Cllr Ellar
7.2 NM2 Letter from Cllr Connelly
7.3 NM3 Further allegation letter from Cllr Ellar
7.4 NM4 Transcript of interview with Cllr Ellar
7.5 NM5 Transcript of interview with Ms Ineza Hussain
7.6 NM6 Transcript of interview with Cllr Bowen
7.7 NM7 Transcript of interview with Mr Noel Murphy
7.8 NM8 Transcript of interview with Cllr Chatt
7.9 NM9 Transcript of interview with Mrs Ann Keen MP
7.10 NM10 Transcript of interview with Cllr Hughes
7.11 NM11 Transcript of interview with Cllr Connelly
7.12 NM12 Note of telephone interview – Mr Alan Keen MP
7.13 NM13 Note of telephone interview – Cllr Kirton
7.14 NM14 Note of telephone interview – Cllr Gill
7.15 NM15 Note of telephone interview with Mr David Keen
7.16 NM16 Note of telephone interview with Ms Elizabeth Hughes
7.17 NM17 Note of telephone interview with Ms Valerie Lamey
7.18 NM18 Note of telephone interview with Cllr Laurie Lopez
7.19 NM19 Note of telephone interview with Mr Peter Dodkin
7.20 NM20 Note of telephone interview with Cllr Bartholomew
7.21 NM21 Note of interview with Mr Mike Smith (MO)
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
26
7.22 NM22 Letter from Mr Smith responding to Draft Report
7.23 NM23 Letter from Cllr Ellar responding to Draft Report
7.24 NM24 Email from Cllr Ellar responding to Draft Report
7.25 NM25 Letter from Cllr Connelly responding to Draft Report
7.26 NM26 Hounslow Borough Council Code of Conduct
7.27 NM27 The Relevant Authorities (General Principals) Order 2001.
7.28 NM28 Copy of video tape ‘Political Football’ (Not produced but available if required)
Not for distribution. This report is confidential and must not be disclosed.
27