Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Fiona Barber and Amanda Fitchett.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer was attending the meeting on behalf of the Monitoring Officer and reported that the quorum for the Board was three, with a majority or equal number of Independent Members to Councillors.  It had been known in advance of the meeting that there would only be a maximum of 2 Independent Members in attendance and, therefore, arrangements had been made to ensure that no more than 2 Councillors attended.

Also, only Mr David Lindley, the Independent Person who had been involved in reviewing the complaint, was required to attend the meeting to enable the Board receive his views on the complaint and investigator’s report.  As a consequence Ms Caroline Roberts (Independent Person) 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.

The Monitoring Officer reported that the Terms of Reference for the Board required the Chair to be appointed from the Independent Members.

RESOLVED:

that Desmond Henderson be appointed as Chair for the meeting.

Desmond Henderson 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 interest 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 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.

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 a 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 6.44 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.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report asking Members to consider the Investigator’s report into a complaint referenced 2013/17 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 Deputy Monitoring Officer reported that an independent investigator had been appointed to carry out the investigation into the complaint after the Monitoring Officer and the Independent Person had reviewed the complaint and decided that the most appropriate course of action was to refer it for full investigation.  The investigation had been completed on 26 June 2014.

The investigating officer was unable to attend the meeting but had sent a short resume of his report, which was circulated to members at the meeting. The investigator had found that 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 Deputy 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.

Members considered the independent investigator’s report and had no questions on the contents or the principles of the tests that had been applied to the findings to determine whether there had been a breach.

Mr David Lindley, as the Independent Person advising the Board, stated that he agreed with the Investigating Officer’s findings and outlined his reasons for doing so.

The Board Members discussed the findings of each element of the complaint and agreed with the investigator’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Chair declared the meeting closed at 7.42pm