Agenda and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for the meeting. 

John Sindrey was elected as Chairman for 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 20 March 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 20 March 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 as she knew the subject member as a member of Medway Council. 

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/134) 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.

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/134) 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.

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 Juby. The Referrals Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee had referred this for investigation on 10 March 2011.

The complaint alleged that Councillor Juby made inappropriate and inaccurate statements about Medway Citizens Advice Bureau and malicious statements calling into question the complainant’s professional integrity as Chief Executive of the organisation, which discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation.  The alleged conduct occurred when Councillor Juby issued two press releases to the media during the week commencing 31 January 2011.

The Referrals Sub-Committee considered 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:

·        paragraph 3(2)(a): “You must not do anything, which may cause your authority to breach any of the equality enactments (as defined in section 33 of the Equality Act 2006)”;

·        Paragraph 3(2)(b): “You must not bully any person”; and

·        Paragraph 3(2)(c): “You must not intimidate or attempt to intimidate any person who is or is likely to be:

(i)                 a complainant;

(ii)               a witness, or;

(iii)             involved in the administration of any investigation or proceedings, in relation to an allegation that a member (including yourself) has failed to comply with his or her authority’s code of conduct.”

The matter was referred to the Deputy Monitoring Officer for investigation.

In this case the finding of the Investigating Officer was that there had not been a breach of paragraphs 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b) or 3(2)(c) of the Code of Conduct.

Decision:

The Sub-committee agreed with the Investigating Officer’s finding, having considered the report and found that there had been no breach of paragraphs 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b) or 3(2)(c) of the Members Code of Conduct in respect of Councillor Juby.