Agenda and minutes

To approve the record of the meeting held on 15 September 2014. 

The record of the meeting held on 15 September 2014 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

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 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 provides the Committee with the updated procedures for dealing with councillor conduct complaints which had been discussed at the last meeting on 15 September 2014. The Monitoring Officer undertook a review of the procedures and includes in this report some suggested changes as a result of the discussions to enable the on-going efficient and effective consideration of complaints made about Members. 

Discussion:

The Monitoring Officer presented the report to Members, which provided the Committee with the updated procedures for dealing with Councillor conduct complaints following the discussion at the previous meeting on 15 September 2014.

Decision:

The Committee approved the revised criteria for dealing with Councillor conduct complaints, as set out at Appendix 1 to the report. 

This report summarises the content of agenda item 7 and the appendices to agenda item 7,which, in the opinion of the proper officer, contain 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 the documents. 

The Committee agreed that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the exempt material relating to agenda item 7 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 6and, in all the circumstances of the case, the Committee considers that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. 

The committee is requested to consider a complaint relating to the conduct of a councillor. 

Discussion:

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report, which detailed two complaints that had been received in relation to a Councillor regarding the same incident.

The Monitoring Officer advised the Committee that, in accordance with the published assessment criteria for Councillor conduct complaints, Members needed to determine whether the conduct referred to in each of the complaints 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 the complaint, as set out by the two complainants, and asked the Committee to determine whether the conduct referred to by the complainants 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.

During its consideration the Committee agreed that whilst the Councillor was not acting in this capacity at the beginning of the reported incident, during the later parts.  The committee were of the opinion that the later parts of the complaint could be a breach of the Code of Conduct, in particular, “you must promote and support high standards of conduct when serving in your public post, in particular as characterised by the above requirements, by leadership and example”.

Decision:

(1)       The Committee determined that:

a)                 The Subject Member was not acting in his/her capacity as a Councillor at the initial meeting with the complainants.

b)                 The Subject Member was acting in his/her capacity as a Councillor when they began to discuss issues with the complainants as the Ward Councillor.

c)                 The allegations made in the complaint could potentially fall within the Code of Conduct.

(2)       The Committee agreed that the allegations should be referred for an investigation.

Reasons:

The committee considered that on the face of the complaint the Subject Member could have breached the Code of Conduct, in particular,  “you must promote and support high standards of conduct when serving in your public post, in particular as characterised by the above requirements, by leadership and example”.