Agenda and draft minutes

To agree that the Chairman, after consultation with other Members of the sub-committee, sign the record of the sub-committee held on 28 May 2012, outside of the meeting.

It was agreed that the Chairman, in consultation with other Members of the sub-committee, would agree and sign the record of the sub-committee held on 27 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 O’Brien declared a personal interest insofar as he knew Councillor Stamp and ex-Councillors Burt, Ruparel and Sutton through his role as a Councillor. He also declared that he knew Dan McDonald in his capacity as Chief Executive of Medway Citizens Advice Bureau. He confirmed that he did not consider him to be a close associate.

Mr Ian Burt declared a personal interest as he knew Councillor O’Brien and ex-Councillors Ruparel and Sutton but he had no knowledge of the case until the previous week.

This report brings before the Sub-Committee, the Investigating Officer’s report into an allegation against a Councillor.

Section 1: Background

1.1       The referral from the Referrals Sub-Committee:

On 10 March 2011 the Referrals Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee referred an allegation about Councillor Andy Stamp to the Deputy Monitoring Officer for investigation, which is set out in paragraph 1.2. The Referrals Sub-Committee requested that the allegation be referred for investigation.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer appointed an independent person to undertake the investigation on her behalf, who prepared a report of his findings.  The Investigator’s report concerns a potential breach of paragraphs 3(1), 3(2)(b) and 6(a) of the Members’ Code of Conduct. The Investigator referred his report to the Hearings Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee for consideration in accordance with the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008.

1.2             The allegation

The allegation was that Councillor Andy Stamp breached the Member’s Code of Conduct when Councillor Stamp reported and re-reported the complaints that he made to Medway Council’s Standards Committee concerning the behaviour of two other councillors (DU/MO/124 and 125).  The complaint related to the issuing of leaflets and conducting an email campaign against other councillors.

The Referrals Sub-Committee identified paragraphs 3(1), 3(2)(b) and 6(a) of the Members’ Code of Conduct as potentially relevant in relation to the alleged conduct:

·              Paragraph 3(1) of the Code:

         You must treat others with respect.

·              Paragraph 3(2)(b) of the Code:

         You must not bully any person.

·              Paragraph 6(a) of the Code:

         You must not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly to confer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage.

1.3       The consideration stage of the Hearing Sub-Committee:

A consideration meeting of the Hearings Sub-Committee considered the report of the Investigating Officer on 23 January 2012.  The Hearing Sub-Committee considered the Investigating Officer’s report which found that there had not been a breach of paragraphs 3(2)(b) and 6(a) of the Members’ Code of Conduct.  However, the Investigating Officer did find a breach of paragraph 3(1) of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Hearings Sub-Committee was therefore required to determine whether to refer the matter to a hearing or request that the First Tier Tribunal determine the matter. 

The Hearings Sub-Committee, under Regulation 17 of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008, referred the matter to a hearing

Section 2: Preliminary procedural issues

2.1       The Hearing Sub-Committee’s decision on procedural issues was as follows:

The Chairman of the Hearings Sub-Committee summarised the process of the meeting, which would be as follows: -

·        Firstly the sub-committee would deal with any issues regarding procedure;

·        It would then deal with disagreements of finding of facts;

·        It would then go on to consider whether Councillor Stamp had failed to follow the Members’ Code of Conduct, including listening to representations from Councillor Stamp, his representative Mr Burt and the Independent Investigator;

·        If the sub-committee decided that Councillor Stamp had failed to follow the code it would then listen to representations from the parties as to whether or not a penalty should be set and if so, what form it should take;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.