Agenda and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for the meeting.

John Sindrey was elected as Chairman for the meeting. 

To agree that the Chairman, after consultation with other Members of the Sub-Committee, signs the record of the Sub-Committee held on 14 February 2012, outside of the meeting.

It was agreed that the Chairman, after consultation with other Members of the Sub-Committee, agrees the record of the Sub-Committee held on 14 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 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.

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 in that she new Councillor Chitty as a Member of the Council. 

This report summarises the content of agenda item 7, which, in the opinion of the proper officer, contains exempt 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 document.

The sub-committee agreed that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the exempt material relating to agenda item 7 because consideration of this matter in public would disclose information falling within one or more categories of exempt information contained in Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as specified in agenda item 6 and, in all the circumstances of the case, the sub-committee considers that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. 

The sub-committee also agreed that the investigating officer be allowed to remain in the room during the consideration of item 7.

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.  

This meeting is the “consideration stage” of the hearings process. The Sub-Committee is required to consider the Monitoring Officer’s findings and may refer the matter for a hearing or to the First-tier Tribunal for determination.  

Discussion:

The Hearings Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee of this authority considered the Investigating Officer’s report into an allegation against Councillor Chitty. The Referrals Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee had referred this for investigation on 23 March 2011.

The complaint alleged that the breach occurred during an official visit to China in connection with the town twinning of Medway and Foshan, which took place between 17^th and 20^th February 2011.  

The Referrals Sub-Committee considered the complaint and decided there was a potential breach of the Code of Conduct. The paragraph of the Code identified by the Referrals Sub-Committee as potentially having been breached was paragraph 5; “you must not conduct yourself in a manner, which could reasonably be regarded as bring your office or authority into disrepute”.  The matter was referred to the Monitoring Officer for investigation.

In this case the finding of the Investigating Officer was that there had not been a breach of paragraph5 of the Code of Conduct.  In addition, advice had been obtained from Counsel, which concluded that the subject member was acting in her private capacity and therefore had not breached any part of the Members Code of Conduct. 

Decision:

The Sub-committee agreed with the Monitoring Officer’s finding, having considered Counsel’s opinion and the Investigating Officer’s report and found that there had been no breach of paragraph 5 of the Members Code of Conduct in respect of Councillor Chitty on the grounds that she was acting in her private capacity.