Agenda Item 12
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 08 May 2012 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members present:
District
Councillors:
Ms B Palmer
Mr J Savory
Mrs H Thompson
Independent
Members:
Mr G Allen
Mrs M Evans
Mr H Gupta
Mr S Sankar
Mrs A Shirley (Chairman)
Parish Members:
Mr R Barr
Mr M Coates
Mr A Nash
Officers in
Attendance:
The Monitoring Officer
The Democratic Services Officer (ED)
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr A Bullen and Mr P Moore
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
.
3.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 13 March
2012 were approved as a correct record.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
Standards Committee
08 May 2012
6.
PARISH AND DISTRICT MEMBERS’ REGISTER OF INTERESTS AND
OFFICER REGISTER OF GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY
The Registers were open to display and were available for inspection in the
Legal Services area.
7.
NEW STANDARDS REGIME PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS
The Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the outcome of a recent
meeting of Norfolk Monitoring Officers which had been convened to consider
how to manage the process of introducing the new Standards regime
arrangements. There had also been discussion around achieving a
consensus on the Code of Conduct to enable a consistent approach across
the County. It was agreed that an outline report would be drafted and each
authority would be consulted to see if agreement could be reached on key
areas.
The Monitoring officer explained that no formal decision was required. He felt
that the Standards Committee was the best forum to consider the proposals
and express preferences before a final decision would be taken by Full
Council. He briefly outlined the proposed arrangements:
a) The adoption of the Code of Conduct, together with the guidance for
Members. Two Codes of Conduct had been submitted – one from the
Local Government Association and one from the Department for
Communities and Local Government. At a recent meeting of Council
Leaders, a preference had been expressed for the DCLG version.
Monitoring Officers favoured the LGA Code.
b) The establishment of arrangements for dealing with standards allegations
and the establishment of a Standards Committee.
c) The Appointment of an Independent Person and reserve Independent
Persons. Monitoring Officers had recognised that there could be problems
with recruitment for this post and it was proposed that there was a ‘pool’ of
Independent persons formed that could include current Independent
Members of Standards Committees across Norfolk. Although existing
Independent Members could not be retained by their current Standards
Committee, they would under this proposal, be able to be appointed to
another Standards Committee within the region.
d) The establishment of a register of interests to be kept and maintained by
the monitoring officer and to contain those matters set out in Appendix 3
until such time as the Secretary of State publishes regulations relating to
‘disclosable pecuniary interests’ when the Authority may be asked to
consider new proposals and changes to standing orders in relation to the
registration and declaration of interests.
e) The delegation of dispensation powers under section 33 of the Act to the
Standards Committee and the designation of the monitoring officer as
Proper Officer for the receipt of applications for dispensations.
f) The adoption of such other changes to the Authority’s Constitution as are
necessitated by the changes outlined above.
g) The delegation to the Monitoring Officer of the power to take all steps and
deal with all such ancillary matters as are required to implement any of the
above and to render the council compliant with the Act.
Standards Committee
08 May 2012
Members discussed the outline report:
1. It seemed that the principles of the new arrangements were the same as
the existing regime. The only change seemed to be in the processes
involved. The Monitoring Officer agreed. He said that the seven principles
of public life remained an integral part of the new Standards regime. It
was hoped that difficulties in the way complaints were handled could be
avoided in the future and that it was imperative that practice notes were
issued to explain to complainants that some issues were not covered and
to deal with any unrealistic expectations.
2. There was a concern that the current system had been put in place to
ensure that complaints were dealt with independently at a local level and
that a move back to self-regulation could be viewed negatively by the
public. The Monitoring Officer agreed this was a risk. It was hoped that
concerns regarding self-regulation could be addressed with the
appointment of an ‘Independent Person’. In addition, it may be necessary
to review the Monitoring Officer protocol to ensure that it reflected the
member Code of Conduct.
3. The role of the Independent Person could prove to be onerous given the
large number of complaints made to the current Standards Committee.
The Monitoring Officer said that using a ‘pool’ of Independent Persons
could help with this. In response to a further concern that vexatious
complaints should be dealt with early on, he said that the issuing of
practice notes could assist with this.
4. There was a possibility that the Standards Committee could be viewed as
powerless without the option to use sanctions when dealing with
complaints. The Monitoring Officer explained that any complaints referred
to the Committee for a Hearing would be serious rather than trivial. In
addition, for County and District Councils more focus would be placed on
Group Leaders to support the Committee’s decisions and ensure
compliance with them.
5. In response to a concern that any future Standards Committee could be
dominated by one political party, the Monitoring Officer said that there was
also the option to co-opt town and parish councillors onto the Committee.
6. Mrs H Thompson, a District Councillor and County Councillor updated the
Committee on a recent meeting at the County Council to consider the
Outline report. She said that they had agreed to accept the LGA Code of
Conduct but that they intended to alter some of the wording. The
Monitoring Officer added that this was an advantage to the Code being
dealt with locally.
7. At the request of a Member, the Monitoring Officer explained that the
current Standards Committee would be retained until the final regulations
were implemented. The anticipated date was currently 1st July 2012.
8. There was a concern that the role of Monitoring Officer could be reduced
in the future and could eventually become a shared resource between
local authorities. The Monitoring Officer said that currently it was a
statutory requirement that each authority must have a monitoring officer
but there could be a change in how the role was discharged at some
point.
Standards Committee
08 May 2012
The Chairman asked the Committee to consider the proposals before them in
turn:
a) A new Code of Conduct
It was agreed that the Local Government Association Code of Conduct was
the preferred option.
b) Retention of a Standards Committee
The Monitoring Officer advised Members that if there was no Standards
Committee in place Hearings would have to be considered by another
committee of the Council.
It was agreed that a Standards Committee should be retained and that parish
and town councillors should be co-opted onto the committee.
c) Recruitment of Independent Members
The Committee agreed to support the proposal for a pooled arrangement for
Independent Persons. One Member abstained.
d) Registration of Interests
The Committee agreed to continue with the existing arrangements until the
publication of regulations relating to ‘disclosable pecuniary interests’.
8.
LOCAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK CASES
The Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the status of complaints
received.
The meeting concluded at 15.20 pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
08 May 2012