| Place: | Oaks Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland |
| Present: | Mr Atkinson (Independent chairman), Mr Ellison, Mr Hopkins, Councillors Edwards, Heyworth, Mrs M J Robinson, Parish Councillors Mrs M Gelder and Mrs Houghton |
| 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: | No other officers were present. OTHER MEMBERS:- Councillor Sharratt also attended the meeting. |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPEN ITEMS | ||||
| 7 |
Welcome and Introductions The chairman welcomed members to the meeting. |
Noted | ||
| 8 |
Apologies for Absence An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Palmer. |
Noted | ||
| 9 |
Minutes of the Last Meeting Minutes attached RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2008 be signed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 10 |
Matters Arising from the Last Meeting Further to minute no. 4 (26 June 2008) the Legal Services Manager confirmed that the council was only legally obliged to inform a subject member that a complaint had been received about him/her once a meeting of an Assessment Sub-committee had taken place. However the Monitoring Officer had the discretion to inform the subject member sooner, if he believed it would be appropriate to do so. In any event the subject member would be informed about the complaint within five working days of an Assessment Sub-committee meeting. Bearing in mind some members? comments at the last meeting, the Legal Services Manager invited members to consider an amended form of words relating to notifying the subject member, which they might wish to see incorporated into the procedures. Members still had mixed views about the timing of notification of a subject member, but they acknowledged that early notification might provide an opportunity for interference with evidence, might lead to behaviour which would constitute a breach where there had not been one before and might result in unnecessary stress and worry for a member in cases where the complaint was subsequently thrown out by an Assessment Sub-committee. Members concluded that the existing interim procedure should not be amended at this time. RESOLVED: that the interim procedure for the initial assessment of complaints be approved and implemented as currently worded. |
Agreed | ||
| 11 |
Promoting High Standards of Council Conduct Committee members confirmed their commitment to the council?s Code of Conduct. |
Noted | ||
| 12 |
Draft Procedures for Dealing with Complaints About Councillors Draft Procedures - Appendix 1 attached Draft Procedures - Appendix 2 attached Draft Procedures - Appendix 3 attached Draft Procedures - Report attached The Legal Services Manager introduced the draft procedures which were designed to bring reassurance to both complainants and members that complaints would be dealt with appropriately and fairly. The draft procedures had been produced in the context of national legislation, regulations and Standards Board for England guidance. Legal officers from other district authorities in Lancashire had collaborated closely on the wording. Procedure for cases referred to the Monitoring Officer for investigation. From the audience Councillor Sharratt circulated a proposed amendment which would require the complainant to provide evidence in support of the allegation within three months of the allegation at the latest, or the allegation would be declared void, dismissed or withdrawn. The Legal Services Manager explained that the words in paragraph 7 ?....within a reasonable period of time? had been chosen with care, to allow for the fact that some investigations would be more complex and time-consuming than others. He could not recommend that a limit of three months be imposed, but reassured the meeting that a complaint would be thrown out if evidence were not forthcoming ?within a reasonable period of time?. The Monitoring Officer reminded the meeting that spurious complaints should be weeded out by the Assessment Sub-committee within 20 days of a complaint being received. He suggested that officers should be able to give an estimate of how long an investigation of referred complaints might take. Refusal of either side to give evidence would naturally lead the Standards Committee to draw its own conclusions. The Head of Corporate Governance confirmed that if an Investigating Officer was having difficulty obtaining relevant information in the investigation he/she would report this fact to the Monitoring Officer/Standards Committee. The Chairman reassured the meeting that the committee?s own procedures would not allow a complaint to ?float? around ad infinitum and suggested that it would be prudent for progress on ongoing investigations to be reported to meetings of the Standards Committee. Such reporting, which could be undertaken in exempt session, should focus on the investigation process rather than the detail. Members concluded that the need for a draft report, although provided for in paragraph 10, was to be avoided whenever possible, as it could lead to delays in dealing with the complaint and may lead to pressure to disclose information prematurely. Pre-hearing procedure Parish Councillor Mrs Houghton queried the merits of ?limiting the number of witnesses who may simply be repeating the evidence of earlier witnesses?, as proposed in paragraph 7. The Chairman suggested that it would not be a sensible use of Hearing time to invite e.g. 20 witnesses to attend to say exactly the same thing. The Monitoring Officer assured members that the weight of evidence would be made clear in reports. From the audience Councillor Sharratt circulated proposed additions to the procedure which would explicitly 1) allow the subject member to collect and present evidence in his/her defence without any impairment and 2) preclude any informal resolution procedure. Members noted that subject members were not subject to any limitations in gathering evidence in their defence. Any attempt by a member or officer to hamper this process would be likely to constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct for Elected Members or Employee Code of Conduct. If the Monitoring Officer or Investigating Officer became aware of any issues of concern these would come out in the investigation. The Chairman and officers reassured the meeting that there was no informal resolution procedure; as such there was no need to make this explicit in the procedures. Hearing procedure In response to a question from the member of the public about paragraph 3, the Chairman confirmed that the Standards Committee would allow the subject member to be represented or accompanied by ?another person?. In response to a question from Mr Hopkins the Legal Services Manager explained that ?partial suspension? meant that a member would be permitted to carry on some, but not all, of his/her functions as a councillor. Members noted the need to bear in mind the automatic disqualification of a member if he/she did not attend a council meeting over a six month period. The Monitoring Officer reassured the meeting that this was covered in Regulations. RESOLVED: that the draft Procedure for cases referred to the Monitoring Officer for investigation, the draft Pre-hearing Procedure and the draft Hearing Procedure be approved without amendment and implemented. |
Agreed | ||