Issue - meetings

The Monitoring Officer submits a report.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report asking Members to consider the Investigator’s report into complaints referenced 2012/09 and 2012/11 and determine whether the Board agreed with the investigator’s findings. 

If the Board agreed with the findings, then no further action would follow.

If the Board did not agree with the findings, it could either:-

a)    determine that the matter be passed to the Monitoring Officer for informal resolution; or

b)    determine that the matter be referred to a hearing panel.

The Board noted that:-

·           The option of ‘no further action’ could only flow from an investigator’s own conclusion that no breach had occurred.

·           The option of ‘informal resolution’ could only flow from the agreement of the Board that a breach warranted such resolution.  If such resolution was not achievable then the matter should proceed to a hearing.

·           If the matter was referred for hearing, then a hearing subcommittee would be convened to hear the evidence, make findings of fact and determine appropriate outcomes. The Hearings Panel was a sub-committee of the Council’s Standards Committee. The Independent Person would be invited to attend all meetings of the Hearings Panel and their views sought and taken into consideration before the Hearings Panel took any decision on whether the Member’s conduct constituted a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct and as to any action to be taken following a finding of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct.

The Monitoring Officer reported that the independent investigator had been appointed to carry out the investigation into the complaints after they had been referred for investigation by the former Assessment Sub-Committee on 14 June 2012.  The investigation had been completed on 3 December 2012.

The investigator had found that, on the balance of probabilities, the Councillor’s conduct had not breached the Code of Conduct.  The reasons for reaching this conclusion were set out in detail in the investigator’s report.

The Monitoring Officer stated that once a complaint had been referred for investigation, the Standards Committee took ownership of the complaint and the complainant then had no part in the process, apart from being a witness in the investigation.   The Board had not been convened to hear the complaint and/or determine whether a sanction should be applied, its purpose was to determine whether it agreed with the investigator’s findings, or not.

The Monitoring Officer reported that the complainant had made a further submission after receiving the 1st draft of the investigator’s report and the investigating officer had then decided to address the issues in the final report.  The complainant had also sent an e-mail and other documents to the independent members and the independent person after receiving the final report.  The complainant should not have done this, as there was no right to submit additional information to Members of the Board, or to submit further information once the final report had been issued. Neither had every member of the Board received it.  The subject member (the councillor who was the subject of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16

The Monitoring Officer submits a report.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report asking Members to consider the Investigator’s report into complaint reference 2012/01 and determine which of the following options should be taken:-

a)    To agree with the investigator’s findings that there was no breech of the Code of Conduct by the Councillor and that no further action be taken; or

b)    Not agree with the findings and determine whether:-

1)    To pass the matter to the Monitoring Officer for an informal resolution; or

2)    Refer the matter to a hearing panel. 

Members asked why Complaint ‘C’ in the report had not been investigated by the Investigating Officer.  The Monitoring Officer stated that the three complaints were originally made by the complainant.  The Assessment Committee in February 2012 decided not to pursue complaints ‘A’ and ‘B’ but did refer complaint ‘C’ to the previous Monitoring Officer for resolution under ‘Other Action’ to discuss mentoring and the management of conflict issues in relation to the alleged breach with the Councillor.  This was a method of resolution whereby it was acknowledged that a potential breach may have occurred, but, that in the particular circumstances, it can be resolved by action being taken short of referral for investigation.  The Monitoring Officer at that time held discussions with the Councillor and the complainant and reported the outcome to the Standards Committee in March 2012.

The complainant subsequently asked for a review of the Assessment Committee’s decision in relation to complaints ‘A’ and ‘B’ and these were referred to the Monitoring Officer for investigation in April 2012.  The report now being considered was the result of the investigation into these two complaints.

Mr David Lindley, as the Independent Person advising the Board, stated that he agreed with the Investigating Officer’s findings, and he contributed to the points addressed in Resolution 3 below. 

General discussion also took place on whether it might ever be appropriate to invite an investigator to a meeting of the Board, in order to ‘speak to’ the findings.  The Monitoring Officer commented that this would occur when the Board sat as a Hearing Sub-Committee, but if the Board wished he would research whether this was appropriate at a general Board meeting and report back.  Members indicated that they wished him to do this. 

RESOLVED:

1)    that the findings of the Investigating Officer as stated in paragraphs 6.1 and  6.2 of his report be endorsed and that no further formal action be taken in relation to the complaint;

2)    that the Monitoring Officer write to the Councillor and the complainant to inform them of the outcome of the complaint;

3)    that the following comments and observations also be conveyed to the Councillor and the complainant:-

a.    that the lack of adequate recording keeping can lead to confusion and that best practice would be to have records of discussions with constituents wherever possible; and

b.    the Board recognise the frustrations of the complainant in relation to the long standing nature of the on-going issues.