1. A-Z of Services
  2. A
  3. B
  4. C
  5. D
  6. E
  7. F
  8. G
  9. H
  10. I
  11. J
  12. K
  13. L
  14. M
  15. N
  16. O
  17. P
  18. Q
  19. R
  20. S
  21. T
  22. U
  23. V
  24. W
  25. X
  26. Y
  27. Z

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Microsoft Teams Meeting

Contact: Pamela Tasker  Governance Support Officer

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Kerry Watkins (Vice Chair) and Councillor David Fouweather.

 

2.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

None

3.

Part 2 Exempt or Confidential Items

To consider the exclusion of the press and public from all or part this meeting while the following item is being considered on the grounds that it will involve the disclosure of “exempt” information as defined in schedule 12 A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and whether the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

 

Minutes:

1.              The Chair asked Councillor Watkins whether she wished to ask the Committee to exclude the press and public from all or part of the hearing and whether she considered that any of the agenda papers should be kept confidential at this stage.

The Ombudsman’s representatives had already indicated in advance of the hearing that they saw no reason for the hearing to be conducted in private or for the papers to be kept confidential. Councillor Watkins confirmed that she did not wish to exclude the press and public as she had nothing to hide and she had no objection to the investigation report and background papers being made public. Therefore, the hearing was conducted in public in accordance with the Council’s remote meetings Protocol, save for those parts of the hearing where the Standards Committee retired in private to deliberate. The public parts of the meeting were recorded and uploaded onto the Council’s website for public viewing. The Ombudsman’s investigation report and the other background papers previously circulated with the meeting agenda as Part 2 documents were also made available on the Council website for public inspection.

 

2.              The Chair confirmed that everyone had received a copy of the hearings procedure and understood the process that the Committee would follow in determining the matter.

 

Stage 2 – Findings of Fact

 

3.              The Chair asked Councillor Watkins to confirm whether there were any disputed facts, as identified in the Investigating Officer’s report. The investigation report identified two potential areas of disputed fact:-

 

Was Councillor Watkins acting “in the moment” when contacting the

Practice via telephone and making her complaint to the Health Board? 

 

Did Councillor Watkins exaggerate the behaviour of the Practice’s staff when making her complaint to the Health Board?”

 

4.              The Chair advised Councillor Watkins that the Committee had taken the preliminary view that these were not disputed facts, as such, as there did not appear to be any issue regarding what events took place and what was said. These were matters of record, as a full transcript of the telephone conversations was included at Appendix 12 to the investigation report and her written complaints to the Health Board were also well documented. The identified matters of dispute appeared to relate to her state of mind and intention which, in turn were more relevant to whether she had breached the Code of Conduct and, if so, the seriousness if such a breach. 

 

5.              The Chair explained to Councillor Watkins that she would still have the opportunity to make representations regarding these matters at subsequent stages of the hearing.  On that basis, Councillor Watkins confirmed that the facts, as set out in the Investigating Officer’s report were all agreed.

 

6.              Therefore, the Committee proceeded to Stage 3 of the hearing, on the basis of the following undisputed facts:-

 

(a)            Councillor Watkins made 2 telephone calls to the Practice on 7th August 2020 to discuss the care and treatment of a patient;

 

(b)            Councillor Watkins was acting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Misconduct hearing - Public Services Ombudsman for Wales Report - Case No.202001914 pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Stage 3 – Did the Member fail to follow the Code? 

 

1.              The Committee invited representations from Mr McAndrew as to whether, on the basis of the undisputed and agreed facts, Councillor Watkins had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.

 

2.              Mr McAndrew submitted that the relevant issue was whether Councillor Watkins had failed to comply with the following provision of the Code of Conduct:

 

7(a) – not to, in an official capacity or otherwise, use or attempt to use her position improperly to confer on or secure for herself, or any other person, an advantage or create or avoid for herself, or any other person, a disadvantage.

 

3.              Although paragraph 7(a) of the Code applies to all members at all times, and not just when they were acting in an official capacity, Mr McAndrew submitted that Councillor Watkins was acting at all times in her capacity as a Councillor. She had introduced herself as a Councillor during the telephone calls to the Practice and, in the second call, had stated that she was acting in her capacity as a member of the Health Board. The subsequent complaints to the Health Board about the Practice were also made in her capacity as a Councillor and were sent from her official Councillor E-mail account.

 

4.              Mr McAndrew accepted that Councillor Watkins was initially trying to be helpful when she contacted the Practice on behalf of an elderly patient but she was forceful in the way that she spoke to the Care Navigators. She also threatened to approach the Chief Executive of the Health Board regarding their refusal to put her through to the on-call Doctor. He submitted that it was difficult to see how Councillor Watkins’ comments were helpful to either the Practice or the patient. Although the patient had contacted the Councillor in distress, her conjunctivitis could not have been considered as a medical emergency. Therefore, he submitted that Councillor Watkins had improperly used her position as a Councillor and member of the Health Board to try to seek an advantage for her constituent over other patients of the Practice, whose medical needs may have been more urgent, and that her actions constituted a breach of paragraph 7(a) of the Code of Conduct.

 

5.              Councillor Watkins had stated during the investigation that she had experienced her own personal issues with the Practice previously about her own healthcare and Mr McAndrew submitted that this may have influenced her behaviour towards them.  

 

6.              As a member of the Council and its representative on the Health Board, Councillor Watkins should have been mindful of the need to act fairly and appropriately in her role. Mr McAndrew submitted that Councillor Watkins’ attempts to use her position as a Council representative on the Health Board to pressurise the Practice staff into acting outside of their standard procedures was, again, a clear breach of paragraph 7(a) of the Code of Conduct.

 

7.              Councillor Watkins had admitted at interview that she should not have said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Standards Committee Decision Report

Minutes:

1.              After a length deliberation, the meeting was reconvened and the Chair announced the unanimous decision of the Committee that:

 

(a)            Councillor Watkins be suspended from her role as a Councillor for a period of 3 months; and

 

(b)            that a recommendation be made to the Council that Councillor Watkins be removed and replaced as a representative on the Health Board.

 

2.              The Chair confirmed that a written record of the Committee’s decision would be prepared and sent to the parties, setting out the relevant findings of fact and the reasons for the decision.