Agenda and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for the meeting. 

Fatima Shah was elected as Chairman for the meeting. 

To agree that the Chairman, after consultation with other Members of the Committee, signs the record of the Sub-Committee held on 28 February 2012, outside of the meeting.

It was agreed that the Chairman, after consultation with other Members of the Committee, would sign the record of the Sub-Committee held on 28 February 2012 outside of the meeting. 

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 was no urgent business. 

(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.

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

Councillor Shaw declared a personal interest by virtue of being present at the Council meeting referred to in the case papers. 

This report summarises the content of agenda item 7, which, in the opinion of the proper officer, containsexempt information within one of the categories in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. It is a matter for the Committee to determine whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of documents contained in that item.

The Sub-Committee agreed that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of item 7 (Report of investigation – case reference DU/MO/113) because consideration of this matter in public would disclose information falling within paragraph 7C of Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Sub-Committee decided that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

This report brings before the Sub-Committee the Investigating Officer’s report into an allegation against a Councillor, which was referred for investigation by the Referrals Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee.

Discussion:

The Sub-Committee met to consider the Investigating Officer’s report into an allegation made by the Chief Executive, the complainant, against former Councillor, Mark Reckless MP of actions, which the complainant considered to be a failure to treat others with respect and bullying towards the complainant, as well as bringing the authority into disrepute. 

The Referrals Sub-Committee met on 14 December 2009 to consider the complaint and decided there was a potential breach of the Code of Conduct.  The paragraphs of the Code identified by the Referrals Sub-Committee as potentially having been breached were:

2.2.1. Paragraph 3 (1) “You must treat others with respect”

2.2.2. Paragraph 3 (2) (b) “You must not…bully any person” and

2.2.3. Paragraph 5 “You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.

The Sub-Committee on 28 February 2012 considered the evidence put forward by the subject member as pre-hearing paperwork, in which they did not feel there to be compelling evidence, the fact that there was now a differently constituted Panel since the May 2011 hearing, the Investigating Officer's report.   They noted the response from the Chief Executive set out in the report and having considered all the circumstances of the case including the time since the original decision and the limited sanctions which could be brought if the matter were to proceed further they determined that the subject member had not failed to comply with the Members' Code of Conduct.

Decision: 

The Sub-Committee found that under Regulation 19 (1) (a) the subject member had not failed to comply with the Members' Code of Conduct.