Meeting documents

Standards Committee
Tuesday, 5 August 2008

standards committee

MINUTES of the Meeting held in the Committee Room, Swale House, East Street, Sittingbourne on Tuesday 5th August 2008 from 7:00 pm to 8:12 pm.

Present: Councillor David Simmons (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Cindy Davis, Bryan Mulhern, Manuella Tomes and Ghlin Whelan.

Officers Present: Philippa Davies, Duncan Milne and Mark Radford.

Also In Attendance: Messrs Rogers (Chairman) and Nunn (Independent Members) and Councillor Bowen (Parish Council Representative).

Apologies: Councillor Pat Sandle and Mr Maclean (Independent Member).

230  

election of chairman

RESOLVED:

(1) That Mr Rogers be elected Chairman for the Municipal Year 2008 - 2009.
 
231  

minutes

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 3rd June 2008 were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

 
232  

declarations of interest

No interests were declared.

 
 

part a minutes for confirmation

 
233  

establishing the new regime

The Corporate Services Director, in his capacity as Monitoring Officer, introduced his report. This set out further details of actions required to establish the new regime for allegations/complaints of Councillors failing to follow the Code of Conduct. He explained that he had summarised particular areas of concern and made recommendations for the Standards Committee to consider.

The Monitoring Officer went through the report, section by section and invited Members of the Committee to contribute.

 
 

notification to the member

Some Members raised concern with regard to paragraph 1.1 in the report concerning the person making the allegation being able to publicise the fact and that the name of the Member in receipt of the complaint may become known. The Monitoring Officer acknowledged this and confirmed that the Member receiving the complaint would be notified as early as possible and this was likely to be at the initial assessment stage of the procedure.

In response to a question, the Head of Legal confirmed that if comments became libellous, this would be a matter to be dealt with separately under the law relating to defamation.

The Monitoring Officer advised that the suggested procedures came from the Standards Board for England guidance and emphasised that the aim of the new regime was to be as open as possible at all times. He explained that not everything within the report would be needed or relevant to all the work of the Standards Committee, but he advised that it was necessary to put the framework in place and establish a baseline. The idea behind the Standards Board Guidance was to establish an all encompassing set of criteria. The procedures could be reviewed over time and his role as Monitoring Officer was a statutory duty to fulfil requirements and manage the process. The Head of Legal and the Monitoring Officer explained that other Local Authorities had similar policies in place.

The Monitoring Officer suggested that it could be beneficial to add 'in exceptional circumstances' to the recommendation.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) (a) That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to notify the member of receipt of a complaint and provide a written summary of the allegation at the same time as acknowledging receipt of the allegation to the person making the allegation and no later than sending the agenda for the meeting of the Referrals Sub-Committee to Members of that Sub-Committee;

(b) Unless, in exceptional circumstances, after consultation with the Chairman of the Standards Committee, the Monitoring Officer considers it appropriate to defer notification in order to enable a proper investigation to take place. In which case notification should be made as soon as the reasons for the deferral no longer apply.
 
 

local resolution of complaints

The Chairman raised concern that the Monitoring Officer could be torn between two competing parties. Discussion ensued as to whether an additional person be involved in the local resolution of complaints. The Monitoring Officer advised that it was the intention to set out the Standards Board for England's guidance so that, in certain circumstances, he had the authority to have cases referred to him, as necessary. He emphasised that this would not usurp the authority of the Standards Committee.

The Monitoring Officer made reference to page 13 in the report and suggested that section b) b. iv needed to be clearer, with the addition of 'in consultation with the Chairman'. He advised that the average cost of investigating a straight forward case could be £8,000 and suggested that if cases could be, they should be resolved locally and the option of local resolution of complaints would enable this to happen.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Council adopt a local protocol as set out in the Appendix attached to the report authorising the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chairman, to seek such local resolution in appropriate cases and to incorporate reference to this within the operating framework of the Referrals Sub-Committee.
 
 

filtering out irrelevant complaints

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That in considering complaints a short summary be agreed and that amongst other things it include:

Whether the complaint is within jurisdiction
The paragraphs of the Code of Conduct the complaint might relate to, or the paragraphs the complainant has identified
A summary of key aspects of the complaint if it is lengthy or complex
Any other information that the Officer has obtained to assist the Sub- Committee with its decision
The option for Officers to contact complainants for clarification if the document submitted is difficult to understand
 
 

assessment criteria

The Monitoring Officer made reference to pages 16 to 18 in the report which outlined a summary of Assessment Criteria from the Standards Board for England. He explained that the criteria covered most of what would be anticipated to happen. Some Members of the Standards Committee raised concern with confidentiality issues.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the assessment criteria be adopted as the operating framework for the Referrals Sub-Committee.
 
 

pre-investigation

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Monitoring Officer be instructed as set out in the draft protocol attached, where practicable to obtain and inform the Referrals Sub-Committee of any publicly available information which would facilitate their task of determining whether a complaint merits investigation.
 
 

access to meetings and decision making

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Referrals and Review Sub-Committees should be recommended to hold its meetings in closed session.
 
 

public information about complaints received

A Member suggested that 'in consultation with the Chairman' be added to the recommendation.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That the Standards Committee approve a protocol in the terms set out in the Appendix attached to the report setting out the responsibilities and discretions of the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chairman, in the provision or withholding of information relating to complaints.
 
 

review of initial assessment

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That until further clarification is received that review criteria be adopted which relate to the bullet points below:
Not enough emphasis has been given to a particular aspect of the complaint
There has been a failure to follow any published criteria
There has been an error in procedures
 
 

decision whether to conduct a local hearing

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That rather than set up four different Sub-Committees, any functions of determining whether to accept the Monitoring Officer's finding of no breach, to go to a local hearing, or to refer the matter to a Case Tribunal should be delegated to a Hearings Sub-Committee.
 
 

publicity for the new arrangements

The Monitoring Officer explained that most Local Authorities had advertised the new arrangements by publishing a Public Notice. He suggested that Swale Borough Council did the same.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That Swale Borough Council publicise the new arrangements by means of a Public Notice.
Monitoring Officer
 

confidentiality

The Monitoring Officer made reference to the criteria set out in section 12.2 of the report.

A Member considered that the criteria were one-sided. The Monitoring Officer explained that the issues within the criteria were exceptional, but that it was important to show that these issues may arise. The Chairman suggested that 'in exceptional circumstances' be added to the recommendation.

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That in exceptional circumstances, guidelines on confidentiality be adopted based on the factors included within the criteria below:
The complainant has reasonable grounds for believing that they will be at risk of physical harm if their identity is disclosed
The complainant is an officer who works closely with the subject Member and they are afraid of the consequences to their employment or of losing their job if their identity is disclosed (this is covered by the Council's Whistle Blowing Policy)
The complainant suffers from a serious health condition and there are medical risks associated with their identity being disclosed (medical evidence would be required).
 
 

member and officer conflicts of interest

RECOMMENDED:
(1) That guidelines on Member and Officers' conflicts of interest be adopted based on the factors outlined below:
The complaint is likely to affect the well-being or financial position of a friend, family member or person with whom they have a close association
The Member or Officer is directly or indirectly involved in the case in any way.
A family member, friend or close associate of the Member or Officer is involved in the case.
The Member or Officer has an interest in any matter relating to the case.
 
 

cost implications

The Monitoring Officer explained that at the moment there was no dedicated funding for any cost implications of the new regime.

 
 

guidance from the standards board

The Monitoring Officer explained that he had added the guidance from the Standards Board for England to the agenda for information. He sought Members' views on how much information they required regarding the new regime. Some Members considered that it was helpful to have the information attached to the agenda and to keep the information practical and simple.

The Monitoring Officer advised that he would forward more information when it was relevant.

A Member requested a summary of the current arrangement for the Standards Committee be included in the Minutes, as set out below.

Current status for the Standards Committee:

Since May 2008 any complaints about the behaviour of Members have to be dealt with at a local level, if possible. Only serious breaches will be considered by the Standards Board for England.

There are three Sub-Committees, made up from Members of the Standards Committee. These Sub-Committees are responsible for the three aspects of the process: referrals, appeals and hearings. The Referral Sub-Committee would be the first sift of the process. Each Sub-Committee has an Independent Member as Chairman.

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.

Any complaint has to be considered within 20 days of its receipt.

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.

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

View the Agenda for this meeting

 

Related pages