<p> ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE</p><p>A BREACH OF THE CODE HAS BEEN FOUND</p><p>SANCTION</p><p>Reference: CCN061/13 </p><p>Complainant: Miss Elizabeth Hawken</p><p>Subject Member: Councillor Bert Biscoe, Cornwall Council</p><p>Person conducting Matthew Stokes, Corporate Governance, Property the Assessment: and Commercial Group Manager</p><p>Date of Assessment: 27 April 2014</p><p>Complaint</p><p>On dateofassessment the Monitoring Officer considered a complaint from Miss Elizabeth Hawken concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Bert Biscoe of Cornwall Council. A general summary of the complaint is set out below:</p><p>That the subject member has by his correspondence with the complainant:</p><p>(i) failed to treat others with respect; (ii) unlawfully discriminated; (iii) bullied others; (iv) intimidated or attempted to intimidate others; (v) prevented others from getting information to which they are entitled; and (vi) brought his office or authority into disrepute.</p><p>Decision</p><p>The subject member has breached the Code of Conduct of Cornwall Council by failing to show respect for the complainant but only insofar as his letter to the complainant of 22 October 2013 referred to the ‘sort of venomous attitude and phraseology’ employed by the complainant. In relation to that comment I am of the view that the subject member should formally apologise to the complainant. Reasons for the Decision</p><p>In reaching this decision I have had regard to the information provided by the complainant, the subject member and the views of the Independent Person. In my professional capacity I have experience of dealing with both the complainant and the subject member.</p><p>The complainant has indicated that she has sought independent legal advice in relation to the letter from the subject member. That is entirely a matter for her and I see no reason to allow that suggestion to interfere with my determination of this complaint.</p><p>Having considered all representations available to me I can understand the frustration of and approach taken by the subject member. I am also persuaded that the subject member has legitimately come to a reasoned conclusion as to why, at this stage, it would be inappropriate for him to engage in the meeting proposed by the complainant with representatives from the waste sector. That is a decision the subject member is perfectly entitled to reach and cannot conceivably be considered to constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct on any logical and reasonable interpretation.</p><p>What is routinely overlooked is that councillors are often subject to inappropriate representations from members of the public without any obvious or easy means of response without risking criticism or even, as in this case, complaints being submitted alleging breaches of the Code of Conduct. It is undoubtedly difficult in some circumstances to achieve the correct balance in responding to those representations, whether by way of correspondence or otherwise. In this case I am of the view that the subject member got it wrong, but only in relation to that element of his letter that referred to the ‘sort of venomous attitude and phraseology’ employed by the complainant. I do not consider that the remainder of the letter gives rise to any breach of the Code.</p><p>The only part of the Code that is engaged is that relating to failure to treat others with respect. No other parts of the Code are engaged.</p><p>The subject member has in his response to the complaint acknowledged that he has, by the specific words to which I have referred, failed to treat the complainant with respect and he has offered to apologise to the complainant. I consider that to be a pragmatic and proportionate response to this complaint. For the avoidance of doubt I consider this to be a minor breach of the Code and any further action would be disproportionate in the circumstances.</p><p>I do not consider there to be any compelling public interest reasons to refer this complaint for investigation.</p><p>What happens now?</p><p>This decision notice is sent to the complainant and the member against whom the allegation has been made. Right of review</p><p>At the written request of the subject member, the Monitoring Officer can review and is able to change the decision. To ensure impartiality in the conduct of the review different officers to those involved in the original decision will undertake the review.</p><p>We must receive a written request from the subject member to review this decision within 15 working days from the date of this notice, explaining in detail on what grounds the decision should be reviewed.</p><p>If we receive a request for a review, we will write to all the parties mentioned above, notifying them of the request to review the decision. </p><p>Additional help</p><p>If you need additional support in relation to this or future contact with us, please let us know as soon as possible. If you have difficulty reading this notice we can make reasonable adjustments to assist you, in line with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2000.</p><p>We can also help if English is not your first language.</p><p>Matthew Stokes Corporate Governance, Property and Commercial Group Manager On behalf of the Monitoring Officer Date: 28 April 2014</p>