Issue - meetings

(a) To consider a complaint made against the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Democratic Services Officer outlining the detail of a complaint received against Donna Jones, in her role as the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (PCC).

The Chairman explained the Sub-Committee would consider whether the complaint being reviewed demonstrated a failure to meet the Code of Conduct, as published on the PCC’s website, and that the Sub-Committee’s findings would be made on fact.

The Chairman noted that within the report the complainant’s identity had been anonymised, and that the PCC had provided no comment to the complaint.

The Chairman asked that the video referenced within the complaint be played to the meeting.

The legal adviser was then invited to raise any comments to the meeting, through which they reminded Members of the process to be followed, as per the Summary of Powers.

The Chairman invited any comment or debate from Members, through which it was agreed that:

·         The Sub-Committee would not dissaply part 4 of the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 (the Regulations) in respect of the complaint.

·         The PCC was acting in her capacity as the Police and Crime Commissioner when appearing in the news report, and therefore the  PCC’s Code of Conduct was engaged.

·         In making her comments the PCC had not breached the Nolan principles, and further that she had acted in a professional manner throughout the interview.

·         There was no expectation that the PCC should have challenged the hosts opening comments, and doing so may have disrupted the purpose of the PCC’s attendance at the interview. 

·         It was noted, following careful consideration of the PCC’s commentary, that comments made by the PCC were factual, reasonable and clear.

·         In reviewing the Commissioner’s actions against the code of conduct, in particular 2.1.4 and 2.1.7, the Sub-Committee noted that there was no evidence to suggest the Commissioner had acted in a manner which had brought the office into disrepute or that she had improperly used resources.

·         The Sub-Committee, therefore, concluded that the complaint did not demonstrate a breach in the code of conduct.

The Chairman called a short adjournment to the meeting from 14:34 to 14:37 to allow the Sub-Committee to agree potential wording for a recommendation with legal advice.

Dave Stewart proposed an additional recommendation, as follows, which was seconded by both Councillor’s Jones and Woodward:

The Complaints Sub-Committee close the complaint, without any further action being taken, other than a letter of explanation to the complainant and complained against, on the basis that the complaint does not evidence any failure in the code of conduct by Mrs Jones, in her role as PCC.

Members were asked to vote on the additional recommendation, which received unanimous agreement.

RESOLVED:

That the Complaints Sub Committee:

• Note the content of the report and its appendices. 

·         Close the complaint, without any further action being taken, other than a letter of explanation to the complainant and complained against, on the basis that the complaint does not evidence any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15

(a) To consider complaints made against the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire.

(b) To consider additional comments received from the complainants

(c) To consider additional comments received from the complained against

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Democratic Services Officer outlining the detail of three complaints received against Donna Jones, in her role as the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (PCC).

The Chairman explained consideration of the complaints would be taken together as they related to the same matter, videos feature the PCC alongside candidates standing for election in Hart District Council.

The Chairman further explained the Sub-Committee would consider whether the complaints being reviewed demonstrated a failure to meet the Code of Conduct, as published on the PCC’s website, and that the Sub-Committee’s findings would be made on fact.

The Chairman noted that the report complainants’ identities were anonymised, at their request, and would be referred to as complainant A, B and C and that the outcome of the meeting would be confirmed in writing to all parties.

The legal adviser was invited to raise any comments to the meeting, for which he confirmed he had none at this point of the meeting.

The four videos referenced by the complainants were played to the meeting.

The Chairman invited any comments from Members, through which it was observed that:

·         The PCC held a very particular role, but was still a politician and an elected official. When considering the role of a PCC, any duties should be dispensed with impartiality, but in campaigning would represent their own political party.

·         Members would need to consider whether, in appearing to support these candidates, the Commissioner had gone beyond what might be considered as acceptable and whether the actions taken had demonstrated a breach in the code of conduct.

At 10:18am the Chairman called for the meeting to be adjourned to allow the Sub-Committee to consider legal advice on the evidence presented.

The meeting resumed at 10:50am.

The Chairman noted that office holder role of the Police and Crime Commissioner was not a civil servant and therefore the guidance on conduct for civil servants, as provided to the complaint, did not apply.

The Chairman then read out the comments received from the PCC, for the benefit of the meeting and those observing. It was noted by the Chairman that the images initially provided by the PCC had not been provided to the Sub-Committee, at her request, following confirmation that images would not be eligible for exemption from publication.

Debate was invited by the Chairman, through which Members expressed:

·         Whilst the PCC was expected to carry out their duties in an impartial way, it would be usual that they would support campaign activity for their party, providing that they were not themselves subjected to pre-election restrictions and that no public resources were utilised, including staff or resources of their office or of the Constabulary. It was noted that other PCCs across the country had also taken part in campaign activity during the recent local elections.

·         A member of the Sub-Committee raised concerns that the role of PCC allowed them to engage and supporting such election activity and hoped that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6