Meeting documents

Standards Committee
Tuesday, 21 February 2012

standards committee

MINUTES of the Meeting held in the Council Chamber, Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne on Tuesday 21 February 2012 from 7:00 pm to 8:13 pm.

Present: Councillors Barnicott, Lloyd Bowen, Adrian Crowther, Pat Sandle and Tony Winckless, Mr Nunn (Chairman (Independent Member)), Mr Maclean (Vice-Chairman (Independent Member)) and Parish Councillors Graham Addicott and Ken Ingleton (Parish Council representatives).

Officers Present: Philippa Davies, Donna Price and Mark Radford.

546  

minutes

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 November 2011 (Minute Nos. 376 - 381) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

 
547  

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

 
548  

election of vice-chairman

RESOLVED:

(1) Mr Chris Maclean was elected Vice-Chairman for the remainder of the 2011/2012 Municipal Year.
 
 

part a minutes for confirmation by council

 
549  

the localism act 2011 - the amended standards regime

The Monitoring Officer introduced his report which provided an overview of the changes to the Constitution required to ensure compliance with the Localism Act in relation to the standards regime. The Act had made fundamental changes to the system of regulation of standards of conduct for elected and co-opted Councillors. The date for these changes was 1 July 2012 and it was hoped that arrangements at Swale would be in place from the Annual Council Meeting in May 2012. The Standards Committee was asked to make recommendations to the General Purposes Committee and Full Council regarding the arrangements and the resulting changes to the Council's Constitution, including any required Monitoring Officer Protocol and Access to Information Procedure Rules.

The Monitoring Officer went through his report, highlighting the eight issues that needed to be considered, and the recommendations relevant to those issues. He advised that the Local Government Association had considered whether to produce a template Code of Conduct common to each authority, with the opportunity to vary as appropriate for individual authorities. He explained that he had spoken to the Chairman of the Kent Association of Local Councils and discussed the differences in approach, and the implications, for Town and Parish Councils.

Issue One - The Council must decide whether to set up a Standards Committee, and how it is to be composed

The Monitoring Officer explained that the Localism Act 2011 stated that there was no longer a requirement for a Standards Committee, however there was still a practical need to be able to deal with any complaints. He outlined the options in paragraph seven of the report and advised that the Standards Committee would now need to be proportionally balanced and the Independent Members, currently on the Standards Committee, would cease to hold office. The Monitoring Officer explained that there was a continued responsibility for the Standards Committee to deal with any Parish Council complaints and he outlined the options available to take this into account.

Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed recommendations. Members raised the following issues: was there a need for a Cabinet Member on the Standards Committee; the issue of non-voting Parish Councillors, could this be changed; and the acknowledgement that not all Parish Councils were a member of the KALC, so there could be some exclusion.

The Monitoring Officer explained that there was an option of establishing a joint committee, where Parish Councillors could vote. He advised that how the joint committee would be constituted would need to be further looked into, including the proportional aspect when Parish Councillors were non-political.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That subject to discussion with the Group Leaders the Council establishes a Standards Committee appointed proportionally.
(2) That the Leader of the Council be asked to limit the nomination of only one Cabinet Member representative on the Standards Committee.
(3) That the Monitoring Officer examines the ways of establishing a Joint Committee with Parish Councils, including introducing voting rights for Parish Councillors.
 
 

Issue Two - The Council has to decide what it will include in its Code of Conduct

The Monitoring Officer explained that it was proposed that the general obligations under the Code of Conduct, in Appendix II in the report, would be included in the revised Code and it would also be consistent with the seven principles including selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty and leadership.

Members would only have to withdraw from a meeting if they had a 'Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI)'. The Monitoring Officer advised that more information on this was awaited. DPIs would be added to the website for both the Borough and Parish Councils.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to prepare and present to Council for adoption a draft Code of Conduct. That draft Code should:

i. equate to Paragraphs 3 to 7 (Appendix II in the report) of the current Code of Conduct applied to Member conduct in the capacity of an elected or co-opted Member of the Council or its Committees and Sub-Committees; and
ii. require registration and disclosure of interests which would today constitute personal and/or prejudicial interests, but only require withdrawal as required by the Act in relation to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
(2) That, when the Disclosable Pecuniary Interests Regulations are published, the Monitoring Officer, after consultation with the Chair of Standards Committee and the Leader, add to that draft Code provisions which he considers to be appropriate for the registration and disclosure of interests other than DPIs.
 
 

Issue Three - The Council has to decide what 'arrangements' it will adopt for dealing with standards complaints and for taking action where a Member is found to have failed to comply with the Code of Conduct

The Monitoring Officer advised that he could have discretion to try and filter out and resolve a complaint informally, prior to the possibility of a more formal approach. In response to questions, the Monitoring Officer explained that there was no right of appeal, apart from a judicial review and that vexatious complaints could also be filtered out by him at the initial filter.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to prepare and submit to Council for approval 'arrangements' as follows:

(a) That the Monitoring Officer be appointed as the Proper Officer to receive complaints of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct;

(b) That the Monitoring Officer be given delegated power, after consultation with the Independent Person, to determine whether a complaint merits formal investigation and to arrange such investigation. He be instructed to seek resolution of complaints without formal investigation wherever practicable, and that he be given discretion to refer decisions on investigation to the Standards Committee where he feels that it is inappropriate for him to take the decision, and to report regularly to the Standards Committee on the discharge of this function;

(c) Where the investigation finds no evidence of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer be instructed to close the matter, providing a copy of the report and findings of the investigation to the complainant and to the Member concerned, and to the Independent Person, and reporting the findings to the Standards Committee for information;

(d) Where the investigation finds evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Independent Person, be authorised to seek local resolution to the satisfaction of the complainant in appropriate cases, with a summary report for information to the Standards Committee. Where such local resolution is not appropriate or not possible, he is to report the investigation findings to a Hearings Panel of the Standards Committee for local hearing;

(e) That Council delegate to Hearings Panels such of its powers as can be delegated to take decisions in respect of a Member who is found on hearing to have failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, such actions to include:

(i) Reporting its findings to Council [or to the Parish Council] for information;

(ii) Recommending to the Member's Group Leader (or in the case of un-grouped Members, recommend to Council or to Committees) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council;

(iii) Recommending to the Leader of the Council that the Member be removed from the Cabinet, or removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities;

(iv) Instructing the Monitoring Officer to [or recommend that the Parish Council] arrange training for the Member;

(v) Removing [or recommend to the Parish Council that the Member be removed] from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority [or by the Parish Council];

(vi) Withdrawing [or recommend to the Parish Council that it withdraws] facilities provided to the Member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and Internet access; or

(vii) Excluding [or recommend that the Parish Council exclude] the Member from the Council's offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council, Committee and Sub-Committee meetings.
(2) That a meeting be arranged between the Chair of the Standards Committee and the Group Leaders for the Borough Council and representatives of Parish Councils to discuss how the new system could best operate.
 
 

Issue Four - How many Independent Persons were required?

The Monitoring Officer suggested that only one Independent Person be appointed, but to have a couple of reserves if needed. He raised concern that because of the change in the role of the Independent Member, it might not be easy to recruit someone.

A Member made the following comments: that when looking at criteria for recruiting an Independent Person, a relative who is not a 'blood' relative should also be taken into account when a person is considered not to be 'independent'. An Independent Member considered the new role would not be consistent with the role he had at the moment which he enjoyed.

In response to a suggestion, the Monitoring Officer advised that he would bring back a review on the proposed measures at a future date once any revised arrangements had time to bed in.

Monitoring Officer
RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Standards Committee and the Leader, and with the advice of the Head of Human Resources, be authorised to set the initial allowances and expenses for the Independent Person and any Reserve Independent Persons, and this function subsequently be delegated to the Standards Committee;
(2) That the Monitoring Officer advertises a vacancy of the appointment of 1 Independent Person and 2 Reserve Independent Persons;
(3) That a Committee comprising the Chair and two other Members of the Standards Committee be set up to short-list and interview candidates, and to make a recommendation to Council for appointment.
 
 

Issue Five - Preparation of the Registers

The Monitoring Officer advised that the Localism Act had abolished the concepts of personal and prejudicial interests, to be replaced with DPIs. The DPIs would probably comprise of interests equivalent to the current prejudicial interests. He stated that at a meeting, a registered interest would not need to be disclosed unless it was a DPI. He acknowledged that this may result in some confusion, but advised that the situation should become clearer once the DPIs were known.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Monitoring Officer prepare and maintain a new register of Members interests to comply with the requirements of the Act and of the Council's Code of Conduct, once adopted, and ensure that it was available for inspection as required by the Act;
(2) That the Monitoring Officer ensures that all Members were informed of their duty to register interests;
(3) That the Monitoring Officer prepare and maintain new registers of Members' interests for each Parish Council to comply with the Act and any Code of Conduct adopted by each Parish Council and ensure that it was available for inspection as required by the Act; and
(4) That the Monitoring Officer arrange to inform and train Parish Clerks on the new registration arrangements.
 
 

Issue Six - What Standing Order should the Council adopt in respect of withdrawal from meetings for interests?

The Monitoring Officer explained that a sensible approach, within the context of the seven principles of the Localism Act, would be to exclude a member from the meeting room for a particular item where the Member had a DPI.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) The Monitoring Officer be instructed to recommend to Council a Procedure Rule which equates to the current Code of Conduct requirement that a Member must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole of consideration of any item of business in which he/she has a DPI, except where he/she is permitted to remain as a result of the grant of a dispensation.
 
 

Issue Seven - In what circumstances should Procedure Rules exclude single Members from attending meetings while the matter in which they have a DPI is being discussed or voted upon?

This item was considered jointly with Issue Six, above.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) In respect of single Member decisions, the Monitoring Officer be instructed to recommend to Council a Procedure Rule which equates to the current Code of Conduct requirement that a Member must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole of consideration of any item of business in which he/she has a DPI, except where he is permitted to remain as a result of the grant of a dispensation.
 
 

Issue Eight - What arrangements would be appropriate for granting dispensations?

With reference to paragraph 55 in the report, the Monitoring Officer considered the split between 'admin-type' issues versus subjective issues was appropriate in determining whether a dispensation was to be granted, so that the transaction of business could go ahead.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That Council delegate the power to grant dispensations:

(i) on grounds set out in Paragraph 55 (1) and (4) of this report to the Monitoring Officer with an appeal to Standards Committee, and

(ii) on grounds set out in Paragraph 55 (2), (3) and (5) to the Standards Committee, after consultation with the Independent Person.
 
 

The Monitoring Officer thanked the Independent Members and Parish Councillors for their contribution to the Standards Committee.

The Chairman thanked the Monitoring Officer and his team for the advice and support received.

 
All Minutes are draft until agreed at the next meeting of the Committee/Panel

View the Agenda for this meeting

 

Related pages