Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 31 March 2014.

The record of the meeting held on 31 March 2014 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

Apologies were 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.

Members should also ensure they disclose any other interests which may give rise to a conflict under the council’s code of conduct.

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. 

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

There were none.

This report summarises the content of agenda item 6 and the appendices to agenda item 6, 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. 

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the exempt material relating to agenda item 6 because consideration of these matters in public would disclose information falling within Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as specified in agenda item 5and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Committee considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information. 

The Committee is requested to consider a complaint relating to the conduct of a Councillor. This complaint was initially considered by the meeting of this Committee on 31 March 2014. Under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011, and at the request of the Committee, the views of the Independent Person have now been sought and are appended to the report.

Discussion

The Committee considered complaint number CCC/003/2014, allegations 1, 2 and 3 that had been received by the Monitoring Officer on 17 February 2014, then revised and resubmitted by the Complainant on 20 March 2014. At its meeting on 31 March 2014 the Committee determined that seeking the views of the Independent Person would assist it in making a decision as to whether the conduct alleged in the complaint could possibly constitute a breach of the Medway Council Members’ Code of Conduct. The views of the Independent Person were appended to the report.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer introduced the report and advised the Committee that the Independent Person had been appointed at the annual meeting of Medway Council on 15 May 2013 and that under the Localism Act 2011, the Independent Person’s views could be sought in relation to councillor conduct complaints at any stage during the complaints procedure. She also advised the Committee that they would need to decide whether the conduct referred to in each of the allegations could be attributable to the Subject Member, acting in his/her role as Councillor, and if the answer was Yes, then the Committee would need to determine whether it could possibly be a breach of the Code of Conduct.

The Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to the details of each allegation in turn, as set out by the Complainant, and for each allegation asked the Committee to determine whether the conduct referred to by the Complainant was attributable to the Subject Member in his/her role as a Councillor and if it was, whether the conduct could potentially constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct.

The Committee felt there was no case to be answered in relation to allegations 1, 2 and 3 and that the complaint should not be upheld. Upon being put to the vote, this was agreed unanimously.

Decisions:

(a)       The Committee determined that:

i)                  having taken into consideration the allegations of the Complainant and the views of the Independent Person, there was no case to be answered in relation to allegations 1, 2 and 3.

ii)                complaint number CCC/003/2014, allegations 1, 2 and 3 were not upheld and therefore that no further action should be taken in respect of them.

(b)       The Committee also requested that, in respect of the views of the Independent Person in relation to allegation 1, the procedures relating to public questions to Full Council be reviewed.

Reasons:

(a)   Allegation 1

There was no evidence on the face of the complaint that the conduct alleged by the Complainant occurred. Therefore the Subject Member’s actions and statements could not be a breach of the Code of Conduct.

(b)   Allegation 2

The Committee felt that there was no evidence on the face of the complaint that the conduct alleged by the Complainant occurred. Therefore the Subject Member’s actions and statements could not be a breach of the Code of Conduct.

(c)   Allegation 3

There was no evidence that supported the allegation. Therefore the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1060.