The minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee, held on 7 September 2011, have been previously circulated and Members are asked to confirm that they are correct subject to the following amendments which have been requested:
Minute 14, Discussion with the Lord Mayor:
Add
“Members discussed issues relating to civic tradition and whether this was being affected by the new arrangements. It was felt that it was important to retain the civic role, noting that it was politically neutral. The Lord Mayor stated that the two roles were in a transition period at the moment and there were some issues that were being ironed out. He stated that other authorities had maintained both roles successfully. Members felt that there should be a clear distinction of roles.”
Minute 21, Any Other Urgent Business, Appendix B1
Add
“Members were informed that a further response to the investigator's report had been supplied by the subject member and were asked whether they wished to consider it, as opportunity had already been given to respond to the draft report. Following discussion on the matter and a difference of opinion, Members voted on whether to accept it or not. Upon being put to the vote, it was agreed not to accept the additional information.”
Minutes:
ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS B1
The Chair invited Councillor Kitterick to make a statement regarding an item of urgent business on the agenda of the 7 September 2011 meeting, “Complaint against a councillor: to consider the investigator’s findings 2011/02.” The Chair stated that no discussion would be allowed.
Councillor Kitterick stated that he was willing for his statement to be heard in public, as details had already been leaked to the media and he did not have the confidence that the same thing would not happen again.
He stated that he had objected to a phrase in the investigator’s report that stated the he had “misused his position to obtain information.” He had informed the Monitoring Officer that he objected to this, stating that this was untrue and potentially defamatory and would be unfair if it were leaked. He had subsequently received a copy of the final report 48 hours prior to its consideration by the Standards Committee and it contained no log of his objection. He tried to submit a written response to the Committee on 7 September 2011 outlining why he felt that that line should not form part of the report. Following the meeting he was informed that the Committee had been given an opportunity to look at a further representation from him but had voted against this. The story subsequently appeared in the Leicester Mercury on 17 September 2011, including the words “misused his position” in the headline. He stated that he felt it was against natural justice that this line had been published in the Committee minutes and published on line as a permanent record, as it slurred his reputation and he had been denied the right to refute it. He asked for assurance that the Chair would look at the issue with the Monitoring Officer and report back to the Committee with a recommendation for action.
Councillor Kitterick then left the meeting.
Members raised concern that public minutes were required of private reports, stating that media coverage allowed for potential identification of subject members. They felt that they should be dealt with in the same manner as the Standards assessments and reviews whereby a decision notice was kept for public viewing and not published. They were informed that a public minute was required by law, as it took place in a Committee meeting. The minutes did not identify the individuals concerned. The Head of Litigation agreed that officers could consider whether anything could be done to change future private minutes within the law.
SOCIAL NETWORKING
Councillor Naylor reported that he had been in discussions about this and would report to the next meeting.
Members considered the accuracy of the minutes and agreed to make additions as follows:
Minute 14, Discussion with the Lord Mayor:
Add
“Members discussed issues relating to civic tradition and whether this was being affected by the new arrangements. It was felt that it was important to retain the civic role, noting that it was politically neutral. The Lord Mayor stated that the two roles were in a transition period at the moment and there were some issues that were being ironed out. He stated that other authorities had maintained both roles successfully. Members felt that there should be a clear distinction of roles.”
Minute 21, Any Other Urgent Business, Appendix B1
Add
“Members were informed that a further response to the investigator's report had been supplied by the subject member and were asked whether they wished to consider it, as opportunity had already been given to respond to the draft report. Councillor Willmott stated that he felt the committee should consider the additional information. Following discussion on the matter Members voted on whether to accept it or not. Upon being put to the vote, it was agreed not to accept the additional information.”
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2011 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the amendments detailed above.