Agenda and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for the meeting. 

Tony Dance was elected Chairman for the meeting. 

To agree that the Chairman, in consultation with other members of the Committee, sign the record of the Sub-Committee held on 19 June 2012, outside 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 19 June 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.

There were none. 

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 documents.

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/136) 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 two Parish Councillors, 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 Deputy Monitoring Officer introduced the report to the sub-committee, which included the Investigating Officer’s report into the complaint, which summarised with a finding of no breach by both the Parish Councillors.

The Hearings Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee of this authority considered the Investigating Officer’s report into an allegation against Parish Councillors Mark and Noleen Skudder.

The Referrals Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee had referred this for investigation on 27 July 2011.  The complaint alleged that: -

·        Parish Councillor Mark Skudder breached paragraph 4(b) of the Members’ Code of Conduct as he altered the minutes of a Parish Council meeting which related to himself and without a proper process; and

·        Parish Councillors Mark and Noleen Skudder breached paragraphs 5 and 6(a) of the Code, as they both failed to declare a prejudicial interest in relation to their position on the Youth Club when extra funding was allocated to the Brimp.

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 4(b) of the Code (in relation to Parish Councillor Mark Skudder only):
You must not prevent another person from gaining access to information to which that person is entitled by law;

·        Paragraph 5 of the Code:

      You must not conduct yourself in a manner, which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into dispute;

·        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.

The matter was referred to the former Monitoring Officer for investigation.   The former Monitoring Officer began to investigate the complaint herself as the Investigating Officer but was unable to conclude the investigation and had subsequently left the Council.  The Council’s new Monitoring Officer commenced a new investigation on these complaints as the Investigating Officer and made a finding of no breach by the Parish Councillors of paragraphs 4(b), 5 and 6(a) of the Members’ 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 4(b), 5 and 6(a) of the Members Code of Conduct in respect of Parish Councillors Mark and Noleen Skudder.