| Place: | Oaks Room |
| Present: | Mr R Atkinson (Independent chairman) Mr R Hopkins (Independent member), Councillors Edwards, Palmer, Mrs M J Robinson and Mrs L R Woollard, Parish Councillors Mrs E Houghton and Mrs M Gelder |
| In attendance: | John Dakin (Monitoring Officer and Corporate Director (Policy and Neighbourhoods)), Maureen Wood (Head of Corporate Governance), David Whelan (Legal Services Manager) and Carol Eddleston (Democratic Services Officer) |
| Public attendance: | 1 member of the public was present. |
| Other Officers: | Other Members:- Councillors Michael Green and Sharratt also attended the meeting. |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPEN ITEMS | ||||
| 1 |
Welcome and Introductions The Chairman welcomed new and returning members to the meeting and said he was looking forward to working with them to raise the bar in terms of high ethical standards at South Ribble Borough Council, if that were possible. |
Noted | ||
| 2 |
Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Heyworth and Mr Ellison. |
Noted | ||
| 3 |
Minutes of the Last Meeting Minutes attached Members noted that the response to the consultation on 'Orders and Regulations Relating to the Conduct of Local Authority Members in England' was not circulated as part of the meeting papers as it had already been circulated following the last meeting. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the last meeting be signed as a correct record and signed by the new Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 4 |
Local Referral Regime - New Procedure/Criteria for Dealing with Complaints about Members under the New Local Referral Regime Covering Report attached Appendix 1 - Procedure - Initial Assessment attached Appendix 2 - Initial Assessment Criteria attached The Legal Services Manager presented a report on the proposed new procedure and criteria for dealing with complaints about members under the new local referral regime. He talked members through the interim procedure for the initial assessment of complaints of breach of the code of conduct and the initial assessment criteria. He confirmed that sub-committees for the initial assessment and any subsequent review of complaints would be established on an ad-hoc basis as and when required. Sub-committees would need to be chaired by an independent member and their membership had to be flexible in order to allow for occasions when some members were unavailable or there were possible conflicts of interest. Members expressed some concern about the reference in Clause B of Appendix 2 of the report to justification of the cost of an investigation. The Monitoring Officer reassured members that an investigation would be carried out in cases where the relevant sub-committee felt that it was needed but that there might be occasions when the sub-committee was of the opinion that the potential breach might not be sufficiently serious to warrant a full investigation. The Legal Services Manager agreed to bring a report to the next meeting outlining the range of possible sanctions that the committee could impose in cases of a breach of the code. The member of the public handed over a copy of the report annotated with his personal comments on the detail of the report and interim procedures. The chairman thanked him for his comments which officers would read. However, he pointed out that the papers had been drafted by a lawyer and he was perfectly satisfied that they had been drafted with sufficient due diligence. The Monitoring Officer pointed out that the procedures were heavily prescribed by legislation and also based on guidance from the Standards Board for England. Councillor Sharratt welcomed the requirement in the interim procedures for complaints to be made in writing but was concerned that the member complained about, (the subject member), was not informed immediately that a complaint had been received against him or her. He reminded the committee that he had expressed his concerns on numerous occasions in the past about the lack of a time limit, under the previous standards regime, for complainants to submit evidence in support of a complaint. He was also concerned that a complainant could, under the new regime, withdraw a complaint without being required to explain why. The Monitoring Officer reminded the committee that this was an interim procedure for assessing complaints and that a detailed procedure for hearings was currently being drafted. The Legal Services Manager confirmed that at a hearing the subject member would have the right to be represented, to defend him or herself and to cross-examine the complainant. If a sub-committee decided that an investigation was necessary the subject member would be informed within 5 working days of the decision and would have ample time to prepare for any hearing. He pointed out that a complaint would be thrown out within 20 days of its being received if the relevant sub-committee did not feel that the complainant had provided sufficient information to enable it to make a decision. The Chairman suggested that there needed to be a balance between the rights of the complainant and those of the subject member and he thought it a little strange that the latter would not find out immediately that a complaint had been received. Councillor Mrs Robinson pointed out that suspects in criminal investigations were not always informed at the outset to avoid the possible destruction of evidence. She suggested too that if a complaint got into the public domain at the initial stage it might be prejudicial to the complainant even if no breach were to be found. The Legal Services Manager explained that in accordance with the regulations and guidance the Monitoring Officer was not required to inform the subject member that a complaint had been made about him or her. The initial assessment process was essentially a filter to identify scurrilous and frivolous complaints. The Monitoring Officer pointed out that paragraphs 13 and 14 of the interim procedure for the initial assessment of complaints indicated that the subject member would find out about the complaint either way. Councillor Edwards said that he was happy with the procedures. The chairman asked officers to establish whether it was permissible at law to notify the subject member as soon as a complaint was received. RESOLVED: 1) that the interim procedures be agreed in principle, subject to further consideration of whether a member being complained about could/should be advised as soon as a complaint is made about them. 2) that members be provided with a full list of sanctions open to the Standards Committee following identification of a breach of the code of conduct. |
Agreed | Legal Services Manager | |
| 5 |
Progress on Action Plan for Promoting/Achieving High Ethical Standards Progress report attached The Legal Services Manager presented a progress report on the action plan for promoting/achieving high ethical standards. Members congratulated the council on the recently received report from the Local Government Ombudsman indicating no findings of maladministration over the last 12 months. The chairman commented that this was testimony to the council's commitment to high standards. RESOLVED: that members note the progress report and welcome the evidence of the council?s ongoing maintenance of high standards. |
Agreed | ||
| 6 |
Member Training Members agreed that the training session held on 23 June had been useful. They agreed that further training could be held after the close of the next meeting on 4 September. This training would cover the whole process from receipt of a complaint to full hearing and would take the form of a combination of presentation, case studies and role play. RESOLVED: that further training be delivered following the close of the next meeting on 4 September 2008. |
Agreed | ||