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.
Minutes:
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 findings on each account.
The Board also made the following observations in relation to the complaint and the circumstances surrounding it:-
· It would be have been helpful if the attendance of Councillors at the pre-meeting to discuss arrangement for the ward community meeting had been formally recorded.
· The Councillor who was the subject of the complaint had based their decision on the advice of an officer which had partly contributed to the complainant submitting the complaint. It was therefore, important that advice given by an officer should be fair, open and documented and that it be communicated and explained to the applicant for a ward community grant.
· The scheme for Ward Community Grants gave ward councillors a wide degree of autonomy to determine which applications should be supported or not depending upon the local councillor’s views on the needs and priorities for their ward.
· The guidance notes given to applicants applying for ward community grants should include the details of the process for approving the grants.
The Independent Person made two recommendations arising from his consideration of the investigator’s report as follows:-
· Councillors should be reminded at any meeting to discuss ward community grant applications of the need to consider the Code of Conduct and to make any necessary declarations to ensure public confidence in the application process and the integrity of the councillors.
· That the support officer to the ward community meeting or the Chair of the ward community meeting take the opportunity to explain the full decision process making on a ward community grant application, including the role of the Assistant Mayor.
The Independent Person also made an observation that the process of completing the investigation and the report had been delayed as a result of councillors not returning signed transcripts of interviews and cancelling scheduled appointments. He suggested that councillors should be made aware of the expectation placed upon then when involved in the investigation process.
RESOLVED:
1) That the findings of the Investigating Officer, as stated in paragraphs 6.40-6.44 of the report, that there had not been a breach of the Council’s Code of Conduct be endorsed, and, that no further formal action be taken in relation to the complaint as a consequence;
2) The guidance notes given to applicants applying for ward community grants should include the details of the process for approving the grants.
3) That councillors who are involved in the investigation of a complaint be reminded of the importance to engage with the process, as this is fundamental to public confidence in the arrangements for dealing with a complaint. This could be achieved by including a reference to this effect in the Code of Conduct or Associated Arrangements.
Supporting documents: