election of chairman

RESOLVED:

(1) That Mr Nunn be Chairman for this meeting and election of Chairman be deferred to the next meeting of the Standards Committee. Democratic Services Officer

election of vice-chairman

minutes

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 6th November 2007 were taken as read, confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to Mr Maclean being in attendance and Mr Nunn not being in attendance.

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

part a minutes for confirmation

membership of sub-committees

The Corporate Services Director, in his capacity as Monitoring Officer, introduced his report which had been submitted to the Executive in April 2008. He explained that the role of the Standards Committee was evolving and that any complaints about the behaviour of Members would now be dealt with at a local level, if possible. He advised that there would be three sub-committees, made up from members of the Standards Committee. These committees would be responsible for the three aspects of the process; referrals, appeals and hearings. The referral sub-committee would be the first sift of the process and the Monitoring Officer explained that it was difficult to estimate the demand on the Standards Committee and to predict any increased workload. Any complaint had to be considered within 20 days of its receipt.

The Monitoring Officer emphasised the need to adopt a flexible approach towards the membership of the sub-committees which could be reviewed in six months. He advised that it may be necessary to increase the Parish Council representation in the future, as it was important to mirror the representation with the type of complaint that might be received.

In response to a question, the Monitoring Officer explained that a member would not be able to sit on both the referral and the appeal part of the process, but could then go on and sit on the hearing sub-committee.

training exercise

The Corporate Services Director, in his role as Monitoring Officer, introduced his report which contained a number of case studies which he suggested the Standards Committee worked through together. He explained that they needed to ascertain, with regard to any breach of the Code of Conduct, what course of action would be appropriate.

He referred them to page seven of the report which showed a local assessment complaint handling chart.

The Corporate Services Director went through the report, case by case and invited members of the committee to contribute.

He summarised some of the important factors to consider:

• Sometimes difficult to judge the scale of the issue and a proportionate view would need to be taken.
• Although the Code of Conduct has ten principles of public life which can be looked on as a framework; these are not statutory, whereas the Code of Conduct is. The two sit together, but there is a difference.
• There could be an expectation that the sub-committees would have a lower threshold than the Standards Board for England for referral of complaints for investigation.
• Each case needed to be considered on its own merits.
• It was up to each sub-committee to set its own benchmark; a quarterly report would be sent to the Standards Board for England who may then consider the pattern of decisions being made and provide further guidance or training.
• Importance of getting the balance between situations that could be considered as political rather than unethical.
• Essential to determine who the complaint is about.
• Important to look beyond the headline as there may be cases that should be considered through other procedures.
• Clarify whether public or private capacity.
• Gather as much information as possible.

The Corporate Services Director suggested the expected amount of cases that the sub-committees may have to consider were between six and eight per year.