The Complainant, who held a governance role within Wrexham County Council (“the Council”), alleged that 3 Council members (“the 3 Members”), all highly experienced and leaders of their respective Political Groups, had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”), by jointly initiating legal proceedings in the Council’s name (known as “JR2”). Although against the Welsh Ministers, JR2 sought to prevent the imposition of the adoption of the Council’s draft Local Development Plan (“LDP”). It was also alleged that 1 of the 3 Members had used his Council email for an unofficial purpose. The investigations considered whether paragraphs 6(1)(a) (disrepute), 7(a) (using or attempting to use their position improperly) or 7(b) (misuse of the Council’s resources) of the Code had been breached.
We found that the Council’s Constitution did not explicitly provide the 3 Members with the power to commence litigation on the Council’s behalf, and that this power was delegated to the Monitoring Officer only. Acting outside the Council’s constitutional arrangements is conduct which might reasonably be regarded as bringing the office of member or the Council into disrepute. However, we found that issuing JR2 had not resulted in any significant personal gain to themselves or others, or the direct use of the Council’s resources and that the motive for initiating the proceedings was to uphold and defend democratic decisions of the Council. We also found that 1 of the 3 Members had unintentionally used his Council email account for a private, or political, purpose.
We considered that it was appropriate for the Complainant to refer the matter to this office in his governance role, and that the Council’s Statutory Officers were acting in good faith, and on external legal advice received at the time, in not taking steps to uphold the Members’ decisions against adopting the draft LDP. Due to a more recent Court of Appeal decision, which confirmed that Council members were not obliged to adopt the LDP, the clarity on the legal position and accordingly, the relevant public interest factors, had significantly changed during the course of our investigations. We found that the 3 Members were seeking to uphold the democratic view of the members of the Council and were acting on legal advice they had received, in relation to issuing JR2. Having considered the factual context of the 3 Members’ conduct, and the subsequent series of events, we concluded that no further action was required, in the public interest. This was a highly unusual and unprecedented situation within local government. Similarly, the email sent by 1 Member, was considered to have been unintentional and not serious enough to warrant further action being taken, in the public interest.