Agenda Item 3
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 26 April 2011 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 1.00 pm.
Members present:
District
Councillors:
Mrs S Arnold
Mr M Baker
Mr P High
Miss P Ford
Mr J A Wyatt
Independent
Members:
Mr S Sankar
Mrs A Shirley (Chairman)
Parish Members:
Mr R Barr
Mr M Coates
Mr A Nash
Officers in
Attendance:
The Strategic Director - Information
The Legal and Democratic Services Manager
The Democratic Services Officer
118.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr G Allen, Mr A Bullen, Mrs M Evans, Mr H
Gupta, Mr P W Moore and Mr W J Northam
119.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
.
120.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 15 March
2011 were approved as a correct record.
121.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
Standards Committee
1
26 April 2011
122.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
123.
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.
124.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER’S
OFFICE CONCERNING CASE REFERENCE RF A0345612
The Complainant was present. The Monitoring Officer outlined the details of
the case and informed the Committee that the Information Commissioner had
concluded that, from the information available, and based on the complaint
submitted, it was likely that the Council had not complied with the Data
Protection Act on two counts. However, the Information Commissioner had
decided that formal regulatory action was not required at this point. Members
considered correspondence received from the Information Commissioner in
the context of a question previously received by the Committee from the
Complainant. They agreed to implement the recommendations of the
Information Commissioner and remove any inaccurate information recorded
within the minutes of the Standards Committee. The Committee felt that they
should not apologise for the decision to record an email from the Complainant
as a formal complaint as they had acted on the advice of Officers. The
Monitoring Officer agreed that he would apologise on behalf of the Officers
concerned.
AGREED
1. To implement the recommendations of the Information Commissioner
2. That any apology to the Complainant was the responsibility of Officers
not the Standards Committee
The Complainant was informed of the decision of the Committee and advised
that he would be contacted in due course.
125.
MEMBERS INDUCTION PROGRAMME
The Legal and Democratic Services Manager updated the Committee on the
Members’ Induction Programme. She drew Members attention to the
Orientation Day on 12th May 2011. It was a drop-in event aimed at new
Members and would cover the work of committees, outside bodies and parish
councils. It would hopefully enable new Members to meet each other as well
as established Members. As far as individual committees were concerned,
each would have a ‘stand’ at the event staffed by Officers and experienced
Members. The Legal and Democratic Services Manager asked for volunteers
for the Standards Committee stand.
Members discussed the update:
a) The issue of IT training was raised. Some Members were concerned that
IT training tended to assume a certain level of knowledge and that those
Members with very limited IT skills were often overlooked. The Legal and
Democratic Services Manager replied that the initial focus would be on
Standards Committee
2
26 April 2011
very basic IT this time. New Members would be asked at the Orientation
Day about their requirements regarding IT training. Those with a
reasonably high level of competence would receive more advanced
training at a later date, if required.
b) A Member felt that it would be useful for new Members to have a
dictionary of jargon as there were a lot of local government acronyms –
many of which were used in committees and new Members may struggle
to understand them. It was agreed that this was a good idea and a list of
common jargon would be included in the Members Induction pack.
126.
MONITORING OFFICER ANNUAL REPORT 2010 - 2011
The report summarised the more important matters arising from the
Monitoring officer’s work for the District Council from 1 April 2010 to 31 March
2011.
The Monitoring Officer highlighted the significant fall in the number of
complaints assessed during 2010 -2011 compared to the previous year. The
fall in the number of cases referred for further investigation was not as large
but still lower than the previous year.
The Constitution was fully reviewed in 2010/11 and formally adopted by the
Council on 6 April 2011. The Monitoring Officer had worked closely with the
Constitution Working Party to ensure it met the needs of the Council in terms
of efficient management of business and legal compliance.
The key messages to note from the year were:
a) There had been no reportable incidents during the year
b) The systems of internal control administered by the Monitoring Officer
were adequate and effective
c) During 2010/11 three internal audits were undertaken of relevance to the
Standards Committee and the work of the Monitoring Officer.
d) The Council was proactive in raising the standards of ethical conduct
among Members and staff.
Looking ahead to the future, and in anticipation of the winding down of
Standards for England, the Standards Committee would need to start
focussing on their role and how to effectively maintain standards. The Code of
Conduct would need to be reassessed too.
127.
SHERINGHAM TOWN COUNCIL:COMPLAINT 113
An external Legal Adviser had been appointed by the Monitoring Officer to
investigate the complaint. He presented his report to the Committee.
The finding of the investigation was that there had been no breach of the
Code of Conduct.
The Committee could convene a Panel to hear the matter or to refer it to the
First-tier Tribunal. There was no provision in legislation for the matter to be
first heard by a Standards Committee Panel and then referred to the First-tier
Tribunal. If the matter was heard by a Standards Committee Panel the
maximum penalty which could be imposed was 6 months suspension. If
Standards Committee
3
26 April 2011
referred to the First Tier Tribunal the maximum penalty was disqualification for
up to 5 years.
RESOLVED
To accept the finding of the Legal Adviser that there had not been a failure to
comply with the Code of Conduct
128.
LOCAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
The Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the status of complaints
received. Only three complaints were outstanding and they all related to the
same subject Member.
A Member commented on the time taken to process complaint ref 113. She
reminded the committee that the effect on the Subject Members was
considerable. The Monitoring Officer agreed and said that the cases were
being progressed as quickly as possible.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report.
The meeting concluded at 13.45 pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
4
26 April 2011