The Standards Assessment Sub-Committee of Wiltshire Council was scheduled to consider an assessment of a complaint, COC54073. The meeting's agenda indicated that the public would be excluded for this item due to the likely disclosure of exempt information relating to an individual.

Assessment of Complaint: COC54073

The primary item scheduled for discussion was the assessment of a complaint identified as COC54073. The report pack indicates that this assessment would involve reviewing information related to an individual, necessitating the exclusion of the public from this part of the meeting. The specific details of the complaint and the individuals involved were not made public in the provided documents.

The meeting's agenda and supporting documents outline the procedural rules for the Assessment Sub-Committee, which are designed to facilitate the proper consideration of Code of Conduct complaints. These rules detail the roles of participants, including the Subject Member, Complainant, Monitoring Officer, Democratic Services Officer, and Independent Person. The process involves reviewing written evidence and, in some cases, allowing short statements from the parties involved. The Sub-Committee's role is to determine whether alleged behaviour, if proven, would amount to a breach of the relevant Code of Conduct and whether it is appropriate to refer the matter for investigation, dismiss it, or refer it for alternative resolution.

The report pack also includes the minutes from the previous meeting of the Standards Assessment Sub-Committee held on 4 December 2025. During that meeting, two complaints were assessed: COC53378 and COC53508.

In the case of COC53378, a complaint was made by Mr Mike Dawson against Councillor Dominic Muns regarding statements made in a Wiltshire Conservatives press release and subsequent public comments concerning the disposal of St Stephen's Place car park and negotiations with Castle Place Shopping Centre. The complaint alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct relating to treating others with respect, not compromising impartiality, and not bringing the role or council into disrepute. The Sub-Committee concluded that the press release was likely a political statement aimed at the Council's administration rather than officers and resolved to take no further action.

The second complaint, COC53508, was submitted by Councillor Dr Monica Devendran against Councillor Richard Crook, concerning alleged aggressive behaviour following a Full Council meeting at Amesbury Town Hall. The complaint alleged breaches of the Amesbury Town Council Code of Conduct related to respect and courtesy, upholding the reputation of the Council, and promoting high standards by example. The Sub-Committee noted differing accounts of the incident and welcomed Councillor Crook's apology, concluding that an investigation was not appropriate and resolving to take no further action.

The procedural rules for the Assessment Sub-Committee are governed by Protocol 11, which sets out the arrangements for dealing with Code of Conduct complaints. This protocol outlines the criteria for dismissing complaints, including those that are out of time, lack sufficient information, do not meet initial tests, or are vexatious, malicious, or politically motivated. It also specifies that complaints will not normally be referred for investigation if the Subject Member has offered an apology or a reasonable explanation, or if the matter can be addressed by other means.