Agenda Item 3
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 09 August 2011
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 S Partridge
Mr J Savory
Mrs H Thompson
Mr G Williams
Independent
Members:
Mr A Bullen
Mrs M Evans
Mr H Gupta
Mr S Sankar (Chairman)
Parish Members:
Mr R Barr
Mr M Coates
Mr A Nash
Officers in
Attendance:
The Strategic Director - Information
The Democratic Services Officer
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Ms V Gay, Mrs P GroveJones, Mrs A Moore, Mr R Reynolds
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr G Allen and Mrs A Shirley
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
.
3.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 26 April
2011 were approved as a correct record.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
Standards Committee
1
09 August 2011
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
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.
FUTURE CODE OF CONDUCT ARRANGEMENTS
The Monitoring Officer informed the Committee of the pending abolition of the
current Standards regime and requested that they consider whether they
would wish in principle to adopt a new Code of Conduct for Members to be
put in place when the current regime was abolished. Although local
authorities would remain under a duty to promote and maintain high
standards of conduct by their Members, they would not be obliged to have a
Standards Committee and a decision in principle to have a Code of Conduct
would not imply a commitment to a Standards Committee. He added that
there might be a public expectation that Local Authorities would have a Code
of Conduct. Monitoring Officers for the various Authorities in Norfolk were
considering the possibility of a ‘Norfolk Code’. A Standard code for all Norfolk
Authorities would mean that Members who were elected to more than one
Authority would only have to consider one Code whilst they conducted the
business of each Authority.
Members discussed the report:
a) A Member said that he didn’t feel it was worth having a Standards
Committee if it had no powers. It would be best to allow the government to
impose a system at a future date. He was concerned that there may be
funding implications if the Council went through a process of negotiation with
other local authorities.
b) One Member, who was also Chairman of the Norfolk Association of Local
Councils (NALC) said that when the Code was first introduced, parish
councils were very against it but once it was mandatory they had accepted it.
NALC had discussed the options with District Councils across Norfolk and
the County Council and they all wished to be involved with a voluntary Code
of Conduct.
c) If the Standards Committee was retained, its role could shift to a focus on
guidance and training. Another Member added that a move to self-regulation
by parish councils could be seen as not being ‘above-board’. Retaining the
Standards Committee showed a commitment to high standards and allowed
parish councils to be monitored by an experienced, independent group.
d) A Parish Member whose parish council had previously been the subject of
many standards complaints, commented that they had received a lot of
useful guidance and advice from the Standards Committee. This indicated
that there was definitely a need for regulation and assistance. He added that
a poor parish council could cause a lot of problems for their residents.
e) The question of whether the enforcement of standards of behaviour would be
dealt with by someone else if the committee was disbanded, was raised. The
Monitoring Officer replied that if no committee was in place then the
responsibility was likely fall to the Monitoring Officer. He added that the
Standards Committee
2
09 August 2011
Committee may prefer that responsibility to belong to Members rather than to
an Officer, because of the positive benefits of peer reviews.
f) A Member commented that the current regime may disappear but the
complaints would not. There was a need to have a credible process in place
to deal with such complaints. Another Member added that if the committee
decided not to adopt a Code of Conduct, it sent out a very poor message and
may reflect badly on the Council. It made sense to adopt a county-wide Code
of Conduct as it would ensure that everyone was treated equally.
g) The term ‘voluntary’ could be misleading and implied that parish councils
could choose to opt out. It needed to be made clear that all parish and town
councils would be expected to comply with a Code of Conduct if one was
adopted. It was pointed out that the Council could choose to make it
mandatory if they wished.
h) It was suggested that the current Code of Conduct had deterred a lot of
people from standing as parish councillors. Any new Code would need to be
less onerous. A Member replied that a Code of Conduct just demonstrated
good practice and people who were not prepared to abide by one should not
stand for public office.
i) It was possible that the lack of a standards regime could be a deterrent to
people standing as parish and town councillors. The criminal sanction meant
that people may be referred straight to the police, without the opportunity to
seek advice or guidance from a Standards Committee.
j) A Member said that many large organisations had a nation-wide framework
in place to resolve problems but relied on local committees to resolve issues.
A new standards committee could play a similar role. Another Member added
that good standards were very important and public expectations were rising
all the time.
AGREED
To drop the term voluntary from any future Code of Conduct
That the Monitoring Officer would consider and advise in due course as to the
contents of a new Code
RESOLVED
To adopt in principle a Code of Conduct when the Localism Act 2011 comes into
force
11.
LOCAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
The Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the status of complaints
received. All the outstanding complaints related to the same parish council.
Complaint Reference 112 had been in the system since July 2010. It had
been difficult to progress as the Complainant had moved away from the area
and no longer wanted to pursue it. The Monitoring Officer proposed that the
investigation be terminated and the Subject Member was notified accordingly.
The Committee agreed.
Two other complaints had been referred for further investigation and the
Investigating Officer had received feedback on his final report from the
Complainant but not the Subject Member. It was likely that he would be able
to present the final report to the Committee on the reserve meeting date of 6th
September 2011.
Standards Committee
3
09 August 2011
AGREED
To note the contents of the report.
That the Monitoring Officer should notify the Subject Member of Complaint
Reference 112 that no further action would be taken.
The meeting concluded at 14.50 pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
4
09 August 2011