Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Ms Joanne Holland and Ms Glynis Middleton (Independent Members) and Councillor Grant.

The Monitoring Officer reported that arrangements had been made with Councillor Sood and Mr D Lindley (Independent Person) not to attend the meeting as their attendance would not be required in order to meet the quorum requirements for the meeting. 

Members were reminded that the quorum for the Board was three, with the majority or equal number of Independent Members.  It had been known in advance of the meeting that there would only be a maximum of two independent members in attendance, and, therefore, arrangements had been made to ensure that no more than two Councillors attended.   Also, there was only a requirement for the Independent Person involved in an investigation to be present.  Mr Lindley was not, therefore, required to attend either.

To appoint a Chair for this meeting

RESOLVED:

that Ms Amanda Fitchett be appointed as Chair for the meeting.

Ms Fitchett in the Chair.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2012 are attached and the Board is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2012 be confirmed as a correct record.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business on the agenda, and/or indicate that Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

There were no declarations of interest.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO NOTE

Under the law, the Committee is entitled to consider certain items in private.  Members of the public will be asked to leave the meeting when such items are discussed.

The Committee is recommended to consider the following reports in private on the grounds that they contain ‘exempt’ information as defined by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, as amended and consequently that the Cabinet makes the following resolution:-

“that the press and public be excluded during consideration of the following reports in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, because they involve the likely disclosure of 'exempt' information, as defined in the Paragraphs detailed below of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act and taking all the circumstances into account, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the information as exempt outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Paragraph 1

Information relating to any individual

Paragraph 2

Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

RESOLVED:

“that the press and public be excluded during consideration of the following report in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, because it would involve the likely disclosure of 'exempt' information, as defined in the Paragraphs detailed below of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act and taking all the circumstances into account, it is considered that the public interest in maintaining the information as exempt outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Paragraph 1

Information relating to any individual

Paragraph 2

Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual

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 Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.12pm