Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chairman for the remainder of the municipal year 2012/13. 

Councillor O’Brien was elected as Chairman for the remainder of the 2012/13 municipal year.

Councillor Hicks was elected as Vice-Chairman for the remainder of the 2012/13 municipal year. 

To receive apologies for absence. 

An apology of absence was received from Councillor Kemp. 

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 member need only disclose at any meeting the existence of a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) in a matter to be considered at that meeting if that DPI has not been entered on the disclosable pecuniary interests register maintained by the Monitoring Officer.

A member disclosing a DPI at a meeting must thereafter notify the Monitoring Officer in writing of that interest within 28 days from the date of disclosure at the meeting.

A member may not participate in a discussion of or vote on any matter in which he or she has a DPI (both those already registered and those disclosed at the meeting) and must withdraw from the room during such discussion/vote.

Members may choose to voluntarily disclose a DPI at a meeting even if it is registered on the council’s register of disclosable pecuniary interests but there is no legal requirement to do so.

In line with the training provided to members by the Monitoring Officer members will also need to consider bias and pre-determination in certain circumstances and whether they have a conflict of interest or should otherwise leave the room for Code reasons. 

There were none. 

This report proposes a set of criteria for use in considering complaints and summarises the process for receiving and resolving or investigating complaints about the conduct of a Councillor.  It also proposes some additional considerations to enable the efficient and effective consideration of complaints.

Discussion:

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report and highlighted to the Committee the suggested criteria flowchart to be used when assessing complaints, attached at Appendix 1 to the report and two amendments being recommended within the procedure for dealing with Councillor conduct complaints, which were: -

·        That complaints between 6-12 months not be investigated where it is unreasonable to do so bearing in mind the circumstances of the case;

·        That complaints should not be investigated where it is disproportionate to do so and none of the other informal resolutions apply.

Members then considered the report, the assessment criteria and suggested amendments.  In relation to complaints made that were between six and twelve months from the incident complained about, Members agreed that it was useful to have this criteria as it was often very difficult to remember events that happened more than six months ago and it was also felt that the circumstances for why a complaint would be made six or more months after an event would be limited.  It was therefore suggested that the emphasis of the phrasing be made so that complaints that were between six and twelve months old would not be considered unless there were reasonable grounds for the delay.

Members also requested that the email address provided in the procedure guidance was corrected and that a copy of the complaints form be circulated to committee members for information.  It was also confirmed to Members that these alterations did not have to be referred back to full Council.

Decision

The Committee agreed the assessment criteria flowchart attached at Appendix 1 to the report and the Medway Council procedure for dealing with Councillor Conduct complaints under the Localism Act 2011, attached at Appendix 2 to the report, subject to the following wording being used; “Complainants are expected to bring their complaints to the Monitoring Officer as soon as possible.  When a complaint is made about an event that occurred more than six months ago, unless there are extenuating circumstances, it will not be investigated”.

This report summarises the advice given to Members regarding Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and other situations where a Member should consider whether they can take part in decision making. 

Discussion:

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report and informed the Committee that a large number of Members had attended a training session on Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) and the Medway Code of Conduct in August 2012.   He explained that at the training he had advised that Members also needed to be mindful of bias, predetermination and conflicts of interest.  The committee were then asked if the training session had been considered helpful, whether more was needed, whether an additional training session should be provided for Members that could not make the previous session and whether there should be an annual refresher training event.  The Monitoring Officer also confirmed that all of the Members’ DPI forms had now been submitted.

The Committee commented that the session had been very helpful and felt that other Members who had been unable to attend the session should be provided with the opportunity of another event to ensure all Members were fully aware of the rules and advice.

In relation to an annual refresher it was suggested that another training session be provided in approximately one year and that before that session this committee consider what other advice and guidance should be provided at the session.

Decision:

1)                 The committee noted the report and agreed that the Monitoring Officer hold an additional DPI and Code of Conduct training session for Members who were unable to make the previous event.

2)                 The committee also agreed that a further training session be provided in approximately one year and that before that session, this committee consider what other guidance and advice should be provided.

This report recommends a general dispensation to be granted to all Members on matters that may affect so many Councillors that the Council or Committee would be inquorate. 

Discussion:

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report which recommended a general dispensation to be granted to all Members on the following matters: -

·        Housing – where the Councillor (or spouse/partner) holds a tenancy or lease with the Council as long as the matter does not relate to the Councillor’s particular tenancy or lease;

·        Housing benefit – where the Councillor (or spouse/partner) is in receipt;

·        Statutory sick pay

·        Allowance – travelling expenses, payment or indemnity for Councillors

·        Ceremonial honour

·        Council Tax or a precept

Members then discussed issues around the appropriateness of dispensations where Councillors are in positions at partner organisations to which funding is provided or contracts let to by the Council.  The Monitoring Officer firstly explained that where Councillors were in such positions that were in their own capacity and were paid then these would be considered as Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) but that if Councillors were in these positions as non-paid Council representatives, then these did not qualify as a DPI but may be considered as conflicts of interest.  Discussion then took places about when it was appropriate to grant dispensations, for example where the Council is setting the budget and a proportion of the budget affects an organisation that is linked to a Councillor but that this proportion is a small fraction of the overall budget being set.  It was suggested that a de minimis threshold be developed to help in terms of guidance as to when a dispensation is and is not appropriate.

Decision:

1)         The Committee agreed to grant a general dispensation to all current Members of Medway Council to speak and vote on matters set out above and at paragraph 3.2 of the report for a period of four years from the date of this decision and it considered granting the dispensation was in the interests of persons living in the area.

2)         That the Monitoring Officer report back to a future meeting of this committee on a de minimis threshold to be considered when granting dispensations.

To agree the timetable of meetings for the committee for the remainder of the municipal year 2012/13. 

Discussion:

The Democratic Services Officer introduced the report, which recommended that the Committee schedule monthly meetings to avoid delays in dealing with complaints but that meetings be cancelled when not required.

The Committee raised concerns with one of the proposed dates, 17 October 2012, as this clashed with another meeting involving a number of the Committee Members and therefore requested that an alternative date be sought.

Decision: 

The Committee agreed that its meetings be set on a monthly basis and agreed the dates as set out at paragraph 3.1 of the report, subject to an alternative date being sought for October 2012.