Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Thomas and from Sheila Brucciani (Independent Member and Chair) and Mary Ray (Independent Member).

Apologies for absence also were received from Councillor Westley, who was absent on other Council business.

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

No such declarations were made, although Councillor Naylor advised the meeting that he recently had been approached by David Maclean, a reporter with the Leicester Mercury, regarding minute 39, “Complaint Against a Councillor: To Consider the Investigator's Findings”, of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 January 2012.  Councillor Naylor confirmed that he had made no comments on this matter.

The minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 18 January 2012 are attached.  Members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Committee received the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2012.

Councillor Willmott advised that he had not attended that meeting as he was a witness in the case to which minute 39, “Complaint Against a Councillor: To Consider the Investigator's Findings”, referred.  This was the only substantive item on the agenda, and he would not have been able to remain in the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Porter requested that the approaches he had received from the Leicester Mercury in relation to the same item that he had disclosed at that meeting be recorded in the minutes.

RESOLVED:

            that the minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2012 be approved as a correct record, subject to a new paragraph being added at the end of minute 33, “Declarations of Interest”, as follows:-

“Councillor Porter advised the meeting that he had been approached by the Leicester Mercury for a comment on the report to be considered at agenda item 8, “Complaint Against a Councillor: To Consider the Investigator’s Findings”.  Councillor Porter confirmed that he declined to comment or provide an interview after the meeting and had immediately advised the Acting City Solicitor and Monitoring Officer of the request.”

The Chair will lead a discussion on the future Standards framework for Leicester.

The Chair reminded the Committee that the draft report outlining the new standards arrangements that the Council was required to put in place following the coming in to force of the Localism Act 2011 had been circulated by the Monitoring Officer as a draft for discussion purposes.

The Monitoring Officer advised that he had already received comments on this report from Councillor Willmott.  These are attached at the end of these minutes for information.

The Monitoring Officer then reminded Members that the new standards arrangements would now come in to effect on 1 July 2012, (not 1 April 2012 as originally proposed).  This meant that the current Independent Members of this Committee could remain in post until the new regime started (ie, until 30 June 2012). 

However, this would require the members concerned to be reappointed at the Council’s Annual Meeting.  It was explained that there were indications that the government was now considering introducing some transitional regulations that would enable existing Independent Members whose term of office had come to an end to be re-appointed as an Independent Person for a limited period of time.  In the absence of any transitional regulations, the Council would need to appoint at least one Independent Person, whose appointment would need to be approved by Council

It was likely that the new code would be based on a document that was being prepared by the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors.  However, it was known that many Councillors nationally were not comfortable with the proposals being made.  For example, under the current system, a subject member could appeal against the findings of inquiries in to their conduct to a tribunal, but no provision for this was made under the new system. 

It was recognised that the Council could keep parts of the previous system in place and would aim to balance the membership of whichever body was undertaking hearings and processes.  Advice on processes would continue to be given to Members before hearings when needed.

The following points were then made in discussion:-

·           A clear procedure, including timescales, would need to be put in place for the receipt and processing of complaints against Councillors.  This could be based on the current procedure;

·           The need for three independent persons was questioned, as the Standards Committee had not had a large workload in the past.  It also was suggested that having a higher number of independent persons would pass responsibility to unelected officials, which it was felt was contrary to the government’s aims.  In reply, it was noted that three had been suggested as the City Council was a large authority and this was the current number of Independent Members, which seemed to work well.  Other possibilities could be considered though, such as having one Independent Person with one other as a substitute or reserve member;

·           Under the new system, the Independent Person would no longer be a member of any new Standards Committee, although they could attend meetings.  They would not have any voting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Committee is asked to note that Councillor Naylor has held discussions on developing guidance for elected members on social networking and protecting e-identity, but it has not been possible to progress the work further, as information required from other sources has not been forthcoming.  (Minute 18, “Social Networking”, 7 September 2011 refers)

The Committee noted that Councillor Naylor had held discussions on developing guidance for elected members on social networking and protecting e-identity.  However, it had not been possible to progress the work further, as information required from other sources had not been forthcoming.  (Minute 18, “Social Networking”, 7 September 2011 referred.)

Councillor Naylor advised the Committee that the City Council’s Head of Information Security had provided guidance that appeared to be good way to progress the issue.  In summary, the suggested guidance was that it was better not to use social networking sites in relation to Council matters.  If they were used, Councillors needed to be proceed carefully, thinking how they could be portrayed through social networking and how anything they said could potentially be used.

It was stressed that all Councillors needed to be aware that when using social networking websites they were communicating with a wide audience that was aware of their position as a Councillor.  Care therefore should be taken to ensure that they did not say or do anything they would not do elsewhere.  Awareness training could be useful to reinforce this and a practical guide to how this would work in practice could be produced.

RESOLVED:

that the draft guidance on social networking and protecting e-identity be considered at the next meeting of this Committee.

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 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 involves 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(c)

The deliberations of a Standards Committee or other 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.

The Monitoring Officer submits a report

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report informing the Committee of Other Action taken following a decision of the Standards Assessment Sub-Committee relating to a complaint that had been made in respect of the alleged conduct of a Councillor.

RESOLVED:

1)    that the position be noted; and

2)    that the Standards Committee is satisfied with the action taken by the Monitoring Officer.

The meeting closed at 6.57 pm