Agenda Item 3
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 10 January 2012
in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members present:
District
Councillors:
Mr P W Moore
Ms B Palmer
Mr J Savory
Mrs H Thompson
Independent
Members:
Mr A Bullen
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)
Investigating
Officer:
Mr J Chinnery
31.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr G Allen
32.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
.
33.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 10 January
2012 and the Hearing held on 21 October 2011 were approved as a correct
record.
34.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
Standards Committee
1
07 February 2012
35.
36.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
`
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.
37.
LOCALISM ACT 2011
The Monitoring Officer informed the Committee about the cessation of
Standards for England regulatory role. The Council had downloaded material
from the website for reference purposes. It was hoped that this information
could be used during the transition period prior to the relevant legislation
taking effect. It was anticipated that the earliest date for the new
arrangements to come into force would be June 2012.
The County Council was taking the lead in developing a county-wide Code of
Conduct. It was anticipated that Monitoring Officers from across the county
would meet shortly to draw up plans and consider how to move forward.
There were discussions at national level on sanctions that could be imposed
by future Standards Committees. There were currently 6 types and it seemed
likely that 4 could be used:
1. The issue of a formal letter
2. Formal censure
3. Removal of a Member from a Committee (this would need the approval of
the Group Leader)
4. A press release stating decisions reached.
The withdrawal of allowances and suspension from office would not be
options available to a Standards Committee. The Monitoring Officer said that
he would update the Committee when he had further information.
The Committee discussed the update:
a) A Member asked why the current Code of Conduct could not continue to
be used. The Monitoring Officer said that it could but that it should not
conflict with the points just raised. There was also a need to change the
Code to reflect the new requirements regarding registering interests.
However, it was unlikely that there would be any dramatic changes to the
current code.
b) Clarification was sought regarding the role of the police, following the
introduction of a criminal sanction. The Monitoring Officer explained that it
was not clear how this would work yet but it was likely that it would be the
Monitoring Officer who would decide whether a complaint should be
referred to the police. He added that it would need to be a very serious
breach for the police to consider.
c) A Member asked how new complaints would be processed and what
would happen to complaints logged under the current regime. The
Monitoring Officer explained that the existing regime would continue until
the final regulations were in place. Current complaints would need to be
Standards Committee
2
07 February 2012
resolved at local level as there was no longer an option to refer them to
Standards for England. The current sanctions would continue to be
applied until the new regulations took effect. The Investigating Officer
added that the existing system would continue until the appointed day.
There would then be a transition period to complete complaints without
the option of sanctions. In response to a further question regarding
whether any suspended Members would continue to be suspended after
the appointed day, he said usually the law stated that procedures should
continue unless stated otherwise in the transitional arrangements.
38.
COMPLAINT REFERENCE 135 OF 2011
The Monitoring Officer proposed that the Committee considered the complaint
in two parts. If they accepted the Investigating Officer’s conclusion that there
had been no breach in relation to some of the allegations then this part of the
investigation would be dismissed. Consequently only the allegations where a
breach had been found would be referred to a Hearing sub committee. The
Committee agreed to proceed with this proposal.
The Chairman asked the Investigating Officer to briefly outline the allegations
and explain the reasons for his findings. No breach had been found in relation
to alleged failures to declare personal and prejudicial interests or conduct
bringing the office or authority into disrepute. He concluded that there had
been a breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to the alleged failure to
register an interest.
Members discussed the report:
1. A Member asked whether it was unusual for a Member to be appointed to a
role on an outside organisation by the Council and for that appointment not
to be ratified by Full Council. The Monitoring Officer explained that was how
that position had been dealt with in the past. The Subject Member was
appointed to the body as Portfolio Holder not as the official representative of
the Council. He added that the procedure would be reconsidered under the
forthcoming review of the constitution.
2. It was noted that the Register of Interests was not counter-signed by the
Monitoring Officer. He explained that it was not a requirement. The register
would need to be reviewed under the new regime and during that process
consideration would be given as to how and when it should be updated.
3. A Member commented that if the Subject Member was appointed as a
Director to an organisation then it was likely that he had a close relationship
with other members of the Board. The Monitoring Officer said that for the
term ‘close associate’ to apply the relationship between individuals needed to
go beyond that which usually existed between colleagues or political
associates. Sitting on a committee or board with someone did not create a
close association in itself.
AGREED
1. To accept the findings of the Investigating Officer.
2. To dismiss the allegation where no breach was found.
3. To refer the allegations where a breach had been found to a Hearing.
Standards Committee
3
07 February 2012
RESOLVED
To convene a Hearing sub committee
39.
COMPLAINT REFERENCE 136 OF 2011
It was agreed that this complaint should also be considered in two parts so
that only the allegations where a breach had been found would be referred to
a Hearing sub committee.
The Investigating Officer outlined the complaint and informed the Committee
that there had not been a breach of the Code in relation to alleged failures to
declare personal and prejudicial interests or failing to treat others with
respect. There had been a breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to the
alleged failure to declare an interest.
AGREED
1. To accept the findings of the Investigating Officer.
2. To dismiss the allegation where no breach was found.
3. To refer the allegations where a breach had been found to a Hearing.
RESOLVED
To convene a Hearing sub committee
40.
LOCAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK CASES
The Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the status of complaints
received. A training session for Briston Parish Council had been arranged for
16th February 2012. It was hoped that this would resolve some of the ongoing
issues within the parish.
The meeting concluded at 14.50 pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
4
07 February 2012