Councillor Parson Chairman of Rutland County Council, Monitoring Officer Graham Carey

RUTLAND COUNTY COUNCIL Conservative PLANNING HISTORY

SBE13466.05

REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 60(2)
OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000

INVESTIGATING OFFICER: GRAHAM CAREY
MONITORING OFFICER

RUTLAND COUNTY COUNCIL
ALLEGATION CONCERNING: COUNCILLOR CHRIS PARSONS

COUNCIL: RYHALL PARISH COUNCIL

ALLEGATION MADE BY: ANONYMOUS

Date of Report: September 2006
This is a final report.CONTENTS

1. Authority to Investigate the allegations
2. Summary of allegations
3. Conclusions on whether there have been failures to comply with the Code of
Conduct and the findings of fact.
4. The Code of Conduct
5. Investigating Officer’s Findings of Fact
6. Reasoning as to whether there have been failures to comply with the Code of
Conduct.

APPENICIES

Document A Notification of New Allegation received by the
Standards Board for England
Document B Copy of anonymous letter of complaint
Document C1 Copy of Statutory Instrument 2001 – No 3576
(Model Code of Conduct for Parish Councils)
Document C2 Copy of report to Ryhall Parish Council on the
Code of Conduct
Document C3 Copy of Minutes of Ryhall Parish Council for March
13
th
 2002 – giving notice to adopt the Model Code
of Conduct for Parish Councils and for April 17
th
2002 – adopting the Model  Code of Conduct for
Parish Councils.
Document D Declaration of Acceptance of Office of Councillor
Parsons for Ryhall Parish Council
Document E Register of Members’ Interests for Councillor
Parsons for Ryhall Parish Council
Document F Minutes of Ryhall Parish Council May 18
th
 2005
Document G Minutes of Ryhall Parish Council July 27
th
 2005
Document H Copy of the Register of Declarations for Ryhall
Parish Council for May 18
th
 2005
Document I Copy of the Register of Declarations for Ryhall
Parish Council for July 27
th

 20051. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION
1.1 An allegation was made to the Standards Board for England in
December 2005.  The Standards Board for England decided to refer
the allegation to an Ethical Standards Officer.
1.2 The Ethical Standards Officer decided to refer the allegations for
investigation to the Monitoring Officer of Rutland County Council
subject to Section 60(2) of the  Local Government Act 2000.   The
allegations passed to the Monitoring Officer do not contain any details
of the person making them.
1.3 The Monitoring Officer is authorised to conduct the investigation by the
provisions contained in Section 60  of the Local Government Act 200
and the Local Authorities (Code of Conduct) (Local Determinations)
Regulations 2003 as amended.

2. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
2.1 The anonymous letter of complaint says that Mr Parsons directed
Ryhall Parish Council from choosing a plot of land whilst some of his
own land was also under consideration.
2.2 He should have declared a Prejudicial Interest and not taken part in
any discussions and left the room.
2.3 The letter indicates that RCCDC Officer (Rutland County Council
District Council) , Mr Lucas, came up with parcels of land for possible
release of land for Affordable Housing in the Ryhall and Belmsthorpe
Parish.  To that end Mr Lucas provided a list of sites and these were
visited by some of the Parish Councillors accompanied by Mr Lucas.
2.4 One of the parcels of land considered by the group was owned by Mr
Parsons, no votes were taken but the group came to conclusion that by
extending Flints Close, part of the existing Affordable Housing would
probably be the best parcel of land to release.
2.5 At the following Parish Council Meeting on the 18
th
May 2005, Mr
Parsons stated he would not vote or support this site. This was
recorded in the July 27
th

 2005 Parish Council Meeting as an
amendment.

2.6 The anonymous letter concludes that Mr Parsons had a Prejudicial
Interest in the parcels of land under consideration.  He should not have
taken part in any discussions and he should have left the room.
2.7 The letter also states that in his position as the RCCDC Planning
Committee Chairman he should at least have set an example.

3. CONCLUSIONS ON WHETHER  THERE HAVE BEEN FAILURES TO
COMPLY WITH THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND FINDINGS REACHED.

3.1 Having investigated these matters  I am of the opinion that Councillor
Parsons did not fail to comply with paragraphs 1,2,4,5,7,8, 9 and 14 of
Ryhall Parish Council’s Code of Conduct.
3.2 I am satisfied that Councillor Parsons failed to comply with Paragraphs
12 and 13 of the Code of Conduct for Ryhall Parish Council.  However,
in this respect I do not consider that this breach is sufficiently serious to
warrant any further action, as the breach of the Code of Conduct was
remedied 13 days after the statutory deadline and two years before the
circumstance that lead to the allegations being made actually arose.

FINDING
3.3 I find that the matters investigated should be referred to Rutland
County Council’s Standards Committee with a recommendation that no
further action is required in this matter in relation to Councillor Parsons.
I do, however, recommend that all Clerks to Parish Councils be
advised to adopt a standard method of recording interests declared by
parish councillors so that is clearly stated whether the interest declared
is ‘personal’ or ‘personal and prejudicial’.  The nature of the interest
should also be clearly recorded in  the minutes.  Where a councillor
declares a ‘personal and prejudicial  interest’ the minutes should also
clearly stated whether the councillor left the room during discussion of
the item and if the councillor subsequently returns to the meeting for a
later item on the agenda.

4. THE CODE OF CONDUCT
4.1 Ryhall Parish Council adopted the Model Code of Conduct for Parish
Councils contained in Statutory Instrument 2001 No 3576 at a meeting
on 17
th
 April 2002.  There were no additions or amendments made to
the model code at that time or since.
4.2  Paragraph 1(1) of the Code of Conduct states that “a member must
observe the authority’s code of  conduct whenever he conducts the
business of the authority, conducts the business of the office to which
he has been elected or appointed, or  acts as a representative of the
authority.”
4.3 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct states that “a member must
promote equality by not  discriminating unlawfully against any person,
treat others with respect and not so anything which compromises or
which is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for or
on behalf of the authority.”
4.4 Paragraph 4 of the Code of Conduct states that “a member must not in
his official capacity or any other  circumstance, conduct himself in a
manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or
authority into disrepute.”4.5 Paragraph 5 (a)  of the Code of Conduct states that “a member must
not in his official capacity or any other circumstance use his position as
a member improperly to confer on or secure for himself or other person
an advantage or disadvantage.
4.6 Paragraph 7 (1) of the Code of Conduct defines a personal interest and
states that “ a member must regard himself as having a personal
interest in any matter if that matter relates to an interest in respect of
which notification must be given under paragraphs 12 and 13 below, or
if a decision upon it  might reasonably be regarded as effecting to a
greater extent that other council tax payers, ratepayer or inhabitants of
the authority’s area the well being  or financial position of himself, a
relative, or a friend.”
4.7 Paragraph 8 of the Code states that “a member with a personal interest
who attends a meeting of the authority at which a matter is considered
must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest
at the commencement of that consideration  or when the interest
becomes apparent.”
4.8 Paragraph 9 (1) of the Code of Conduct states that “ a member with a
personal interest in a matter also  has a prejudicial interest in that
matter if the interest is so significant that it is likely to prejudice the
member’s judgement of the public interest.”
4.9 Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct states that “a member with a
prejudicial interest must withdraw from the room in which the meeting
is held whenever it becomes apparent that the matter is being
considered at that meeting, unless he has obtained a dispensation
from the standards committee of the responsible authority and not seek
to improperly influence a decision about that matter.”
4.10 Paragraphs 12 to 14 of the Code of Conduct state the circumstances in
which a member must register and  disclose interests, including the
ownership of land.
4.11 Paragraph 12 (f) states that “the address or other description (sufficient
to identify the location) of any land in which he has a beneficial interest
and which is in the area of the authority.”
5. INVESTIGATING OFFICER’S FINDINGS OF FACT
5.1 Councillor Chris Parsons has been a member of Ryhall Parish Council
for 16 years.  He was last re-elected to the Parish Council on 1
st
 May
2003.  He was also re-elected to Rutland County Council on that date.
5.2 Councillor Parsons signed the  declaration of acceptance as a
Councillor of Ryhall Parish Council on 21
st
 May 2003.  The declaration
of acceptance of office also contains an undertaking that Councillor
Parsons will observe the Code of  Conduct which is expected of
members of the Parish Council.5.3 The Code of Conduct to be observed by Councillor Parsons as a
member of Ryhall Parish Council is the same as that contained in the
Model Code of Conduct set out in the Parish Councils (Model Code of
Conduct) Order 2001 – Statutory Instrument 2001 No 3576.
5.4 Councillor Parsons completed a Register of Interest as required by
Paragraphs 12 to 14 of the Code  of Conduct.  The Register was
completed on 10
th
 July 2003.
5.5 The Register of Interests was  not completed within the required 28
days of the date of the election, which was 28
th
 May 2003.
5.6 An investigation of the return of Registers of Interests for all Parish
Councillors in Rutland for the May 2003 elections, revealed that a
significant proportion of parish councillors did not complete their
Registers of Interests until after the statutory deadline.  A reminder was
sent to all Parish Councils where  Register of Interests for parish
councillors were outstanding.  These were then subsequently received.
Of the 11 councillors elected to Ryhall Parish Council on 1
st
 May 2003,
9 submitted their Register of Interests on the same day as Councillor
Parsons (11
th
 July 2003) and two submitted them on 21
st
 July 2003.
5.7 The Register of Interests states that Councillor Parsons has an interest
in 178 acres of land Grange Farm Belmesthorpe.
5.8 Councillor Parsons was present at a meeting of Ryhall Parish Council
on 18th May 2005 when various possible site options within the villages
of Ryhall and Belmsthorpe for Affordable Housing were discussed.
5.9 Councillor Parsons declared an interest in the item on Affordable
Housing and this is recorded in the minutes of the meeting.  (Minute No
22/05)  The precise nature of the  interests declared by Councillor
Parsons and five other councillors at this meeting on various items is
not recorded in the minutes.
5.10 The Declaration of Interest Book mentioned in Minute 02/05 shows that
six councillors declared an interest at the meeting.  All councillors have
entered their name, the subject of the declaration and their signature.
Only one Councillor (who is not Councillor Parsons) has indicated that
the interest was of a personal nature.
5.11 The minutes do not indicate that any member of the Parish Council left
the meeting during any part of the meeting or that the Clerk or any
other Parish Councillors raised  any concerns or objections to
Councillor Parsons being present,  which would be incumbent upon
them to do so.  Paragraph 6 of  the Code of Conduct requires a
councillor to make a written allegation of misconduct to the Standards
Board for England if the councillor becomes aware of conduct by
another member involving failure to comply with the authority’s Code of
Conduct.  The complaint has been referred to me on an anonymous
basis so it is not possible to  determine if the person making the
allegations is a parish councillor or not.  However, there were 7 parish
councillors present at the meeting on 18
th
 May 2003 in addition to
Councillor Parsons and 5 parish councillors other than CouncillorParsons were present at the following meeting on 27
th
 July 2003.  Only
one allegation has been received by the Standards Board for England
on this matter.
5.12 One site visit to look at possible sites in Ryhall and Belmsthorpe was
held on 22
nd
 March 2005.  This was attended by an officer of, Rutland
County Council’s Social Services and Housing Department, Mr J Lucas
(The officer has since left  Rutland County Council) and a
representative of De Montfort Housing Society.  There were four
members of Ryhall Parish Council   present at the site meeting – Mr
Len Laybourn (Chairman), Mr Paul  Huddlestone (Vice-Chairman), Mr
Rob Davis and Mr Simon Fenn.   The site visit was informal with a view
to making an early initial assessment  of the possibilities available for
affordable housing.  No formal notes were made as no formal decisions
were made.  Mr Lucas subsequently produced a report dated 11
th
 May
2005, which identified two sites in Ryhall and Belmsthorpe as being
suitable for consideration for affordable housing, based upon
discussions at the site visit.
5.13  The two sites identified by Mr Lucas for consideration for affordable
housing were land behind the existing Flint Close Development and
land opposite Flint Close on Belmsthorpe Road, between the existing
trout farm and the recent market  development.  Councillor Parsons
owns neither of these sites, nor does he have any interest in them that
he is required to register in his Register of Interest or to declare at a
meeting should these sites be discussed.
5.14 This report was considered by Ryhall Parish Council at its meeting on
18
th
 May 2003.  The discussion took part in a closed session without
the public and press present.  The  Minute state “Following further
discussion on various site options within the villages of Ryhall and
Belmesthorpe it was agreed that in principle the Parish Council were in
favour affordable housing at an affordable price structure for young
people of the villages.  Noted that MrJohn Lucas from RCC was to
continue his investigations into the ownership and possible release of
areas of land and that he would consult the PC further.  If any
Councillor has any further suggestions about possible sites, please
contact the Clerk.”
5.15 The minutes of the meeting of the 18
th
 May 2003 were agreed and
signed as a true record with one amendment under affordable housing
at the following meeting of the Parish Council on 27
th
 July 2003.  The
amendment read “Although no votes were taken at the meeting there
was a certain amount of acceptance of a specific site within Ryhall until
Mr Parsons stated that he would not vote for or support this site.  The
PC then discussed other sites.”
5.16 The Clerk to the Parish Council has confirmed that Councillor Parsons
did not contact her after the meeting to discuss any land which he
owned to be considered suitable as affordable housing.
5.17 There is no evidence on the records of Rutland County Council’s Social
Services and Housing Department to indicated that Councillor Parsonscontacted officers to discuss any  land owned by him in relation to
possible sites to be considered for affordable housing.
5.18 Councillor Parsons has stated in a taped interview that the reason he
would not vote or support the site was that he has always taken the
opinion as a County Councillor that he would not discuss any planning
matters at a Parish level on the grounds that if they came before the
County Council he could speak on them without having commented on
them before.
5.19 Councillor Parsons has stated that in relation to planning issues on
affordable housing he has always declared a personal but not
prejudicial interest as he is a member of the Development Control and
Licensing Committee of Rutland County Council.
5.20 The Clerk of the Parish Council has confirmed that this is Councillor
Parson frequently takes this action when planning issues are
concerned.
5.21 Councillor Parsons although a member of the Development Control
and Licensing Committee of Rutland County Council, he has never
been the Chairman of the Committee as stated by the person making
the allegations.
5.22 No sites identified as potential sites for affordable housing in the parish
of Ryhall have been discussed or  formally considered at formal
meetings of the Rutland County  Council, nor has any planning
application been received such sites for affordable housing.
5.23 Discussions with current staff in the Social Services and Housing
Department confirm that no firm proposals were ever developed as a
result of the site visit and subsequent discussions by the Parish
Council.  The whole process of identifying potential sites has effectively
started afresh with the arrival of new staff in the Department.
5.24 An investigation of the Declarations of Interests made by Rutland
County Councillors shows that Councillor Parsons has an established
history of declaring both personal and personal and prejudicial interests
in relation to the Development Control and Licensing Committee and
other meetings of Rutland County Council that he attends.  Councillor
Parsons has frequently declared personal and prejudicial interests in
relation to matters which have been discussed at various meetings at
the County Council in relation to land owned by him and in relation to
interest arising from his family and friends and his employment.
5.25 Councillor Parsons has stated that he thought that as a member of the
Development Control and Licensing Committee of Rutland County
Council, he would not be able to discuss things as parish level because
it would ‘take him out of being able to discuss them at County level’.
That is the reason he  declared a personal interest and that is the
reason why he said he would not vote or support it.
5.26 Members of the County Council have been advised  of the Standards
Board for England’s guidance on ‘Dual Hatted Members’ which allowsthem to take part in discussions  at parish level and County Council
level provided they indicate at a  parish meeting that their views are
solely based upon the information that is available to them at the time
and that they will reserved final judgement on the issue until they have
received all relevant information that is available to the County Council
on the issue before they make a considered decision.
5.27 Declaring a personal interest  in these circumstances, although not
required, has been a feature of many dual hatted members in Rutland.
5.28 Councillor Parsons has stated that he did not consider himself to have
a personal or prejudicial interest in any of the sites that were discussed
by the Parish Council as being suitable for affordable housing.  Had the
Parish Council discussed his land he owned as being suitable for
affordable housing he would have declared a personal and prejudicial
interest and left the meeting.
5.29 The Clerk of the Parish Council has stated that the discussion was of
very general nature about what land may be available in the Parish to
help Rutland County Council to fulfil its requirements to meet affordable
housing needs in the County.  The Clerk believes the discussion was
concerning land near Flint Close and the trout farm but cannot confirm
this with any certainty in view of the time that has since passed.  The
Clerk is, however, sure that had discussion taken place upon land
other than the two sites that arose from the report prepared by Mr
Lucas after the site visit, then this would have been recorded in the
notes that the Clerk took and this would have appeared in the minutes
of the meeting.  The  Clerk also feels that if Councillor Parsons had
suggested that  his own land be considered for affordable housing, this
too would have been noted.
5.30 Councillor Parsons confirmed that he has previously declared a
personal and prejudicial interest when land he owned was under
consideration.
5.31 Councillor Parsons has been fully co-operative throughout the period of
the investigation and he has supplied information freely to my requests.

6. REASONING AS TO WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN FAILURES TO
COMPLY WITH THE CODE OF CONDUCT.
6.1 The minutes and the Register of Interests for the meeting do not
indicate what type of interest was declared by any councillor.
Furthermore, the description of the interest described is too generic in
many instances, particularly the in respect of the reference to Mr
Parsons of “Affordable Housing”.
6.2 Guidance issued on the Code of Conduct and by the Standards Board
for England indicates that the precise nature of the interests and the
detail of the interest should be  both declared and recorded in the
record of the meeting (minutes).
6.3 The record of the meeting should indicate whether a councillor
declared a personal interest or whether the interest was both personaland prejudicial.  In this way there is no doubt as to the precise nature of
the interest that has been declared and the subsequent action that may
be required from the councillor concerned.
6.4 An examination of minutes of a number of parish councils in Rutland
shows that the style of minutes used at Ryhall is common throughout
Rutland, and this highlights the need for all Clerks to be given further
guidance on the recording of declarations of interest.
6.5 A councillor who declares or who  has a personal interest in an item
under discussion may speak and vote on the item at the meeting.  A
councillor who declares or who has a personal and prejudicial interest
should leave the meeting room at the point the item is to be discussed,
not take any part n the discussion or voting on the item and not return
to the meeting room until the item has been dispensed with by the
meeting.  In addition, the member should not discuss or attempt to
influence other councillors directly on the item.
5.32 The reference to Councillor Parsons declaring an interest in “Affordable
Housing” is insufficient in itself to determine whether Councillor
Parsons declared a personal or personal and prejudicial interest in the
item.  It is also insufficient to describe why that interest arose, and
therefore, it is not possible to  determine the precise nature of the
interest or whether Councillor  Parsons declared the appropriate
interest at the meting.  Councillor Parsons stated in his interview with
me that he declared the personal interest in relation to him also being a
County Councillor and a member of the Development Control and
Licensing Committee of Rutland County Council (Dual hatted member).
6.6 The Clerk and all other councillors present at the meeting are under a
duty to ensure that any councillor who declares a personal and
prejudicial interest in an item leaves the meeting when that item is
discussed.  There is no mention in the official record of the meeting
(the minutes) that Councillor Parsons’ attendance at the meeting when
the item of affordable housing was discussed was challenged on any
grounds.  Nor is there any evidence  in the record that Councillor
Parsons was asked to leave the meeting.
6.7 From the documents that I have seen and from discussions I have had
with current and former  staff in the Rutland County Council’s Social
Services and Housing Department  that have been involved in the
formulation and consideration of plots of land in Rutland for use as
affordable housing, I can find no evidence that Councillor Parsons
contacted officers to suggest that any of his  own land should be
considered for “affordable housing”.  The sites selected for
consideration in Ryhall Parish arose from a tour of the village by a
Rutland County Council officer, an officer of a housing association and
four parish councillors.  Councillor Parsons was not involved in this
process.  The two potential sites that were identified by this exercise
were land behind the existing  Flint Close development and land
opposite to it.  Councillor Parsons has no declarable interests in
relation to these two sites, nor is any of his own land adjacent to them.
It does not appear, therefore, that Councillor Parsons has a declarable
interest in relation to these sites.6.8 As Monitoring Officer, I was asked  by the former housing official for
general advice in relation to dealing with County Councillors who may
be landowners, of which a number were identified, should any of their
land be considered suitable as potential sites for affordable housing.
The advice given was that the Council’s established protocol used for
dealing with planning applications from County Councillors should be
applied if the housing officer needed to discuss potential sites known to
be owned by County Councillors.  This protocol involves County
Councillors appointing an agent to act on their behalf so that no direct
discussion takes place between the  Councillor and a Council officer.
This mechanism protects both the Councillor and the officer from any
suggestion of impropriety or breach of probity protocols.  The housing
official accepted the advice as  being sensible and practical and
undertook to implement it should the need arise.
6.9 The housing official did not raise any subsequent concerns in relation
to this matter with me, nor is there any file record to suggest that there
were any concerns.  I am confident that the housing official would have
raised any such concerns with me  had they existed.  Given these
circumstances I conclude that there is no evidence to suggest that
Councillor Parsons had any direct discussions with Council officers on
any land he owned being considered as a potential site for affordable
housing.  In the absence of any such evidence Councillor Parsons
would not have a personal interest in this aspect.
6.10 It is my view that taking all factors into account that there is no
evidence to suggest that Councillor Parsons was required to declare a
personal and prejudicial interest in the item under discussion.
6.11 Councillor Parsons submission of his Register of Member’s Interests
dated 11
th
 July 2003 is a breach of  paragraph 13 as it should have
been completed and submitted within 28 days of the date of the
election. However, in this respect I do not consider that this breach is
sufficiently serious to warrant any further action, as the breach of the
Code of Conduct was remedied 13 days after the statutory deadline
and two years before the  circumstance that lead to the allegations
being made arose.  Furthermore,  a significant number of parish
councillors submitted their Register of Interest forms far later than
Councillor Parsons did.
6.12 This approach is also compatible with numerous investigations carried
out by Ethical Standards Officers of the Standards Board for England.
Ethical Standards Officers have also consistently taken this view when
a breach of the Code has occurred but the councillor has later
complied with the requirement during the course of the investigation.
6.13 The allegation states that the group considered a parcel of land owned
by Councillor Parsons following the identification of sites by Mr Lucas.
The group appears to be the members  of the parish council and the
two officers of Rutland County Council and the DeMontfort Housing
Association.  There is no evidence to suggest that Councillor Parsons
was a member of that group.  If the group came to the conclusion that
by extending Flints Close, part of the existing affordable housing wouldprobable be the best parcel of land to release, there is no evidence to
suggest that Councillor Parsons was  involved in that decision as he
was not a member of that group.  The Clerk recalls that the members
on the site visit did discuss a parcel of land owned by Councillor
Parson but is not sure why this arose.  The Clerk does not remember
Councillor Parsons being involved in the group’s site visit or
discussions.
6.14 When the outcome of this site visit was later discussed by the Parish
Council, there is sufficient evidence to indicated that the discussion
centred around the two parcel of land identified by Mr Lucas, neither of
which were owned by Councillor Parsons.  Given these circumstances
it is difficult to see the circumstances whereby Councillor Parsons
interest would be so significant that it would require a personal and
prejudicial interest to be declared, since his land was not being
discussed.
6.15 The allegations contain errors of fact that are fairly simple to verify.  For
example there is a misunderstanding that Councillor Parsons was the
Chairman of the Planning Committee.  Councillor Parsons is a member
of the Development Control and Licensing Committee (not Planning
Committee) and has never been its Chairman as claimed.  This part of
the allegations is therefore incorrect and unfounded.
6.16 There is also a belief that Councillor Parsons was a member of the
group that rejected his own land as  suitable as a potential site for
affordable housing.  This too is incorrect.
6.17 It is also unclear why there was a considerable period of time between
the events of May/June 2005 and the allegations being made.
6.18 Given the findings of fact  and the reasoning and circumstances
outlined above, I am satisfied that  there is not sufficient evidence to
suggest that Councillor Parsons was in breach of the Code of Conduct
in relation to the requirements to make declaration of interest as
required by Paragraphs 1,7,8,9,and 10 of the Code of Conduct.
6.19 There is no evidence to suggest either that Councillor Parsons used his
position as a Councillor to breach Paragraphs 2,4, and 5 of the Code.
6.20 The evidence confirms that  Councillor Parson’s has complied with
Paragraphs 12 to 14, albeit that  the form was delivered after the
statutory deadline.  This in my view is not material to the allegations for
the reasons explained elsewhere in this report.
6.21 Taking account of all the facts of this case, I am satisfied that no further
action is required to be taken against Councillor Parsons.
6.22
Graham Carey
Monitoring Officer
Rutland County Council
September 2006