Case Summary - Wolverhampton City Council

Case no.	SBE-09294- F7VWV
Member(s):	Councillor Sandra Samuels
Date received:	25 Feb 2010

Allegation:

Failure to act on a prejudicial interest and bringing her office and the council into disrepute

Standards Board outcome:

The ethical standards officer found that the member failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, but in the circumstances of the case, no further action needed to be taken.

Case Summary

Two complainants made allegations against Councillor Samuels, relating to a meeting of the council on 3 February 2010. She was the chair of the Wolverhampton African Caribbean Resource Centre. There was a motion to restore funding to the Centre. Councillor Samuels declared a personal interest but spoke in the debate, stayed and voted on the motion. It was alleged that she had a prejudicial interest in the business and ought to have withdrawn from the debate.

During her speech she said “If we have to take to the streets and cause a riot out there that is what we will do”. It was alleged that these words brought her office or authority into disrepute.

The ethical standards officer investigated Councillor Samuels’ role as chair of the Resource Centre. She was closely involved in the running of the Resource Centre, and was a director of the company although she had not registered this interest in the members’ register of interests. The ethical standards officer considered that Councillor Samuels had a prejudicial interest which she had not acted upon. She therefore failed to comply with the Code of Conduct. The ethical standards officer noted, however, that Councillor Samuels had received incorrect advice from an officer of the council about the need to declare an interest, and so decided that no action needed to be taken against Councillor Samuels.

Councillor Samuels stated that she had inadvertently referred to causing a “riot” in her speech, and that she had intended to refer to a protest. The ethical standards officer discovered that she had referred to the possibility of a riot with reference to the withdrawal of funding from the Resource Centre on an earlier occasion. The ethical standards officer considered that Councillor Samuels had spoken consciously and that by using the word “riot” she had brought the council and her office into disrepute. However, she accepted that Councillor Samuels had not meant her words to be taken literally. Councillor Samuels told the council immediately that she had used the words metaphorically. Therefore the ethical standards officer considered that no action needed to be taken in relation to this complaint.