Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Caroline Roberts (Independent Person) although her written comments were conveyed via the Monitoring Officer.

The Monitoring Officer reported 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 three independent members in attendance and, therefore, arrangements had been made to ensure that there were no more than three Councillors in attendance.  In the event only one Councillor could attend as two Councillors were on other Council business and a third had indicated that they had an interest in some of the subject matter of the complaint and decided it would not be appropriate for them to attend the meeting.  

Also, as only the Independent Person who had been involved in reviewing the complaint was required to attend the meeting to enable the Board to receive their views, Mr Lindley was not required to attend either.  

The Terms of Reference for the Board require that the Chair for this meeting is appointed from one of the Independent Members present.

RESOLVED:

that Joanne Holland be appointed as Chair for the meeting.

Joanne Holland in the Chair.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

Members were asked to declare any interests they might have in the business on the agenda.  No such declarations were made.

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

Paragraph 7A

Information which is subject to any obligation of confidentiality.

Paragraph 7C

The deliberations of a standards committee or of a sub-committee of a standards committee established under the provisions of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 in reaching any finding on a matter referred under the provisions of section 60(2) or (3), 64(2), 70(4) or (5) or 71(2) of that Act.

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

Paragraph 7

The deliberations of a standards committee or of a sub-committee of a standards committee established under the provisions of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 in reaching any finding on a matter referred under the provisions of section 60(2) or (3), 64(2), 70(4) or (5) or 71(2) of that Act.

Paragraph 7A

Information which is subject to any obligation of confidentiality.

The Monitoring Officer submits a report and the Board is requested to determine if it agrees with the finding in paragraph 6.2 of the Investigator’s report and which of the options set out in paragraph 4.4 of the Monitoring Officer’s Report should be taken.

A letter to the Monitoring Officer from the complainant is also attached for information at Appendix B.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report asking Members to consider the Investigator’s report into a complaint referenced 2013/04 and to 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 is 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 an independent investigator had been appointed to carry out the investigation into the complaint after he the Independent Person had reviewed the complaint and decided that the most appropriate course of action in respect of the complaint was to refer it for full investigation.  The investigation had been completed on 21 November 2013.

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 then introduced the investigating officer, and invited her to present her findings. 

The independent investigator then presented her report in detail and explained the principles of the tests that needed to be applied to some of the findings to determine whether there had been a breach. The investigation had considered each element of the complaint in detail and involved discussions with the complainant and to some extent, the Member concerned. There had also been a great deal of discussions with a wide range of witnesses and residents from the local community. The investigator expressed a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.40pm.