Agenda and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman of the Committee for the remaining life of the Committee pending the introduction of a new standards regime under the Localism Act.

Janet Gray was elected as Chairman for 2012/2013. 

To approve the record of the meeting held on 20 March 2012 and the record of the Joint Meeting of all Committees held on 16 May 2012.

The record of the meeting on 20 March 2012 and the record of the Joint meeting of all Committees on 16 May 2012 were agreed as correct, with the removal of the second reference to the Chief Executive of Medway Council being in attendance at the Joint meeting of all Committees. 

To receive apologies for absence. 

There were none. 

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he/she has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were none. 

(a)               Personal interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, may stay, speak, and vote on the matter.

(b)               Prejudicial interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal and prejudicial interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, must withdraw from the room and take no part in the debate or vote on the matter.

Councillors who have declared a personal and prejudicial interest may make representations, answer questions and give evidence before leaving the room but only if members of the public are allowed to attend for the same purpose.

(c)               If an interest is not declared at the outset of the meeting, it should be disclosed as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

Councillors O’Brien, Shaw and Smith declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 (work programme) as the report referred to other Councillors who the Members knew as Members of Medway Council.

Parish Councillor Alan Marsh declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 7 (work programme) as complaint no. MO/152 referred to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Allhallows Parish Council and he was a member of that Parish Council. Also, complaint MO/153 was against him, so he would leave the room whilst this matter was discussed but would return for consideration of the exempt appendix.

The Monitoring Officer will provide a verbal update on the local arrangements for implementation of the changes to the “ethical framework” which will be introduced under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011.

Discussion:

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report advising that he had previously informed the committee that the implementation of the changes to the “ethical framework” would be taking place prior to July 2012. Since the last meeting, it had been announced that 1 July 2012 was the effective date and that Local Authorities must adopt the code on or after that date. The pecuniary interest regulations had also been published, with Members now required to register employment details, sponsorship, contracts, land, licences, corporate tenancies and shareholdings over £25,000.

The Monitoring Officer advised that he had drafted a new procedure, code and flowchart for future complaints and consulted with senior Members of the council on these proposals. He had received endorsement to take these forward earlier this week and had therefore been unable to circulate these to the committee prior to the meeting. The proposals were based on responding to Members’ concern at the recent high number of complaints and the cost associated with them.

The committee was informed that, legally, the highest level of sanction would be to censure a Member and he therefore proposed to deal with most complaints on an informal basis. With regard to Parish Council complaints, he would ask them to resolve these internally, if it was not too much of a burden, and he had spoken with most of the Parish Clerks about this. He also proposed that if, proportionally, it was unjustifiable to hold an investigation which could only lead to censure at the highest level, then he would not hold an investigation.

The committee was advised that the Monitoring Officer wished to be clear about how rare an investigation would be under the new proposals, as he would take every opportunity to deal with a complaint at the lowest level. If, however, an investigation was held, this would take place quickly and by correspondence. Once it was decided to hold an investigation, the matter would be given to an independent person, recruited by the council, for judgement and if there was no informal resolution it would be submitted to a newly formed committee for decision. The committee would be established with a membership of eight Councillors and an advert would be placed shortly to seek recruitment of the independent person, and it was expected that they should have appropriate legal experience.

The Monitoring Officer advised that this was a unique approach and a much simpler approach to how other Local Authorities had responded to the Localism Act 2011. Other councils had retained a similar procedure to their current system but this was because they did not receive the same number of complaints experienced at Medway. His proposals were not about reducing costs but that the current format was not positive for Medway which was why he proposed to significantly change the current system within the legal regulations.

The committee was further advised that the Monitoring Officer had considered the following issues whilst drafting the proposals:

·        that the unhelpful release of information to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

This report sets out the work programme for the Standards Committee. This is kept under review and presented to each meeting of the Standards Committee. In addition the position relating to complaints considered by the Referrals Sub Committee is summarised for information only. 

Discussion:

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report, which updated the committee on the progress and outcome of the outstanding complaints. All of these had been concluded with the exception of three cases, which would all be considered on 19 June 2012.

For case MO/136, the Monitoring Officer had taken the role of Investigating Officer and another legal representative would act as Monitoring Officer at the hearing. With regard to MO/152, the information on employment issues had been received and for case MO/153, a Parish Council representative had been appointed and a Review Sub-Committee would consider these complaints. Therefore, it was hoped that these cases would conclude in advance of the current process coming to an end.

During discussion of the exempt appendix, the Monitoring Officer updated the committee on his conclusion of case MO/163.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

(a)         note the update on complaints;

b)      the Committee resolved to exclude the press and public for the discussion of the exempt appendix as it contained information under paragraph 7C of the Local Government Act 1972, (by virtue of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008);

(c)     note the Monitoring Officer’s exempt appendix and conclusion that mediation could not take place in case MO/163 and that the relevant decision notice would be amended accordingly.