Meeting documents

Standards Committee
Wednesday, 9th December, 2009

Place: Lancashire Football Association HQ, Thurston Road, Leyland PR25 2LF

 Present: Mr R Atkinson (Independent Chairman), Independent Member Mr J Holt, Councillors Mr J E J Breakell, Mr K W Palmer, Mrs M J Robinson, Mr B Yates, Parish Councillors Mrs M Gelder and Mrs E Houghton
 In attendance: Councillors Marsh, Sharratt and Watts

John Stone (Investigating Officer)

John Dakin (Monitoring Officer), David Whelan (Legal Services Manager) and Dave Lee (Democratic Services Officer)
 Public attendance: 1
 Other Officers: Councillors Foster, M Green and Titherington and an officer

Item Description/Resolution Status Action
OPEN ITEMS
36 Welcome and Introductions

The Independent Chairman welcomed members, officers and members of the public to the meeting and explained the procedures to them.
 Noted   
37 Apologies for Absence

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Independent Member Steve Ellison.
 Noted   
38 Declarations of Interest

(i) Councillor Yates declared a prejudicial interest in minute no. 39 because he was the subject member. He indicated that he would step down from the committee during the consideration of that item.

Councillor Yates also declared a personal (but non-prejudicial) interest in minute no. 40 as he was the subject member in minute no. 39.

(ii) The Independent Chairman (Mr J Holt) informed the meeting that he had previously worked in the same office as Mr Stone (Investigating Officer) approximately 20 years ago.
 Noted   
39 Hearing Into Complaints About Councillors Marsh and Yates
Report (98K/bytes) attached
Appendix 1 attached
Appendix 2 attached
Appendix 3 attached
Appendix 4 attached
Appendix 5 attached
Appendix 6 attached
Appendix 7 attached
Appendix 8 attached
Appendix 9 attached
Appendix 10 attached
Appendix 11 attached
Appendix 12 attached
Appendix 13 (57K/bytes) attached
Appendix 14 (185K/bytes) attached
Appendix 15 (28K/bytes) attached

(Councillor Yates declared a prejudicial interest in this item because he was the subject member. He stepped down from the committee and took no part during the consideration and voting thereon.)

The allegations before the committee were that Councillor Marsh (a member of South Ribble Borough Council) and Councillor Barrie Yates (another member of South Ribble Borough Council) had failed to comply with the Code of Conduct for Elected Members.

At the commencement of the meeting, it was explained that there were two separate complaints about Councillors Marsh and Yates. It was decided to deal with the complaints at the same hearing because of the degree of overlap between the two complaints. The Independent Chairman of Standards Committee decided that the interests of justice were best served by having such a joint hearing. Both subject members consented to this way of proceeding.

The committee considered a report by John Stone (Investigating Officer), who had been appointed by the council?s Monitoring Officer to carry out two separate investigations into the alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct, along with all other relevant information. The committee also considered statements of Mr Simpson, Mr Gorrell and a further late letter submitted by Councillor Watts.

(A) Subject Member: Councillor Yates

The complainant (Councillor Sharratt) had alleged that Councillor Yates failed to declare an interest in a matter that was decided upon at a meeting of Eastern Area Committee on 20 January 2009. The particular item related to a joint application for a grant from Hoghton Cricket club and Gregson Lane Cricket Club for a charity cricket match. It was understood that a joint working party was established to pursue this application on behalf of the cricket clubs concerned and that Councillor Yates allegedly attended the first meeting of this working party and provided advice on how much grant they should apply for. The complainant stated that:- ?At the meeting of the Eastern Area Committee on January 20 Councillor Yates did not declare his interests in the application ? namely, that he had attended the first meeting of the working party, suggested the sum requested, and sought a donation in return. Since I had declared my interest and left the meeting I cannot say how far Councillor Yates participated in consideration of the application and I do not know whether he voted on the matter, but it is clear that he remained in the chair throughout; nor can I say what discussions, if any, he had with his Conservative group colleagues beforehand or how far he influenced their ultimate decision. But in the event the outcome was exactly as he had predicted to the working party last autumn: a grant of ?200.?

The Investigation Officer had found that Councillor Yates: -

1. was in breach of paragraphs 6(a) of the Code of Conduct in that by failing to make a declaration of any interest, failing to declare a prejudicial interest and failing to leave the room when the application for a donation from the cricket clubs in question was considered at Eastern Area Committee he used his position improperly to secure an advantage for another;

2. failed to declare a personal interest at the Eastern Area Committee meeting in relation to the said application by the cricket clubs for a donation contrary to paragraph 9 of the Code of Conduct;

3. had a prejudicial interest at the Eastern Area Committee meeting in relation to the said application by the cricket clubs for a donation. However, Councillor Yates failed to declare that interest ? he stayed in the room, took part in the debate and voted thus acting contrary to paragraph 12 of the Code of Conduct; and

4. did not solicit a donation to his Charity fund (paragraph 6 of the Code of Conduct).

(B) Subject Member: Councillor Marsh

The complainant (Councillor Watts) had alleged that at the same Eastern Area Committee meeting on 20 January 2009 that Councillor Sharratt referred to in his complaint about Councillor Yates, it was understood that again the issue at stake related to the request from Gregson Lane Cricket Club (and Houghton Cricket Club) for financial assistance towards funding a local community event. Councillor Marsh declared an interest (non-prejudicial) as he had been asked to umpire a cricket match as part of the local event. The complainant stated that: - ?I now understand that at the Area Committee 20.01.09 Cllr Marsh, who declared a non-prejudicial interest in minute 48 as he had been asked to umpire the cricket match should have, in fact, declared a prejudicial interest as it transpires he was aware of the same confidential information as Cllr. Sharratt who left the meeting during discussion of that item.?

The Investigation Officer had found that Councillor Marsh: -

1. was in breach of paragraph 6(a) of the Code of Conduct. The investigation report stated that:- ?I find that by failing to make a full declaration of his interest, failing to declare a prejudicial interest and failing to leave the room Councillor Marsh did use his position improperly to secure an advantage for another.? The report went on and stated that:- ?I think his wrongdoing is better reflected by paragraph 12 [1].?

2. was in breach of paragraph 12(1) of the Code of Conduct. A quote from the investigation report stated that:? ?. I find that he also had a prejudicial interest and was obliged to leave the meeting as Councillor Sharratt had done (albeit for a wholly different reason).?

The Investigation Officer presented both of his investigation reports into the conduct of Councillors Marsh and Yates. He called Councillor Sharratt to give evidence.

Both Councillors Yates and Marsh represented themselves.

On 13 January 2009 a meeting of the cricket club working party took place in the Old Oak public house, Houghton. Councillor Yates acknowledged that he attended the public house on that occasion with his colleague Councillor Marsh. Councillor Yates also acknowledged that he provided informal advice to a couple of members of the cricket club working party about how to go about creating a charitable event and how to apply for grants.

Councillor Marsh acknowledged that an application by Gregson Lane cricket club (and Houghton cricket club) for financial assistance towards funding of a charity event was on the agenda. The clubs were asking for ?400 towards the event which was to be held on 4 May 2009 at Hoghton cricket club.

Councillor Marsh acknowledged that he had declared a personal interest at Eastern Area Committee meeting on 20 January 2009. He stated that he had been asked to umpire the said cricket match. Councillor Marsh was the club?s registered umpire for the season and had umpired on occasions for the club in the past.

Councillor Marsh was asked by the club members to assist in the completion of the application for financial assistance by the club and gave some advice. He was a member of the working party. He did not declare this at the meeting on 20 January 2009 and the application was subsequently granted in the sum of ?200.

The committee considered all relevant evidence relating to the complaints. It had before it the investigation reports that had been prepared by the Investigation Officer together with supporting evidence. It also carefully considered the oral evidence of Councillor Sharratt.
The committee carefully considered all representations made, whether written or oral by Councillors Marsh and Yates and the Investigation Officer. It also carefully weighed and considered all written documentation that had been submitted, including the statements of Mr Simpson and Mr Gorrell. It further considered late written representations submitted by Councillor Watts.

(A) Subject Member: Councillor Yates

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY FOUND: ?

that ?

1. on the balance of probabilities that Councillor Yates was not a member of the working party;

2. an application was made by Gregson Lane Cricket Club (and Houghton Cricket Club) for financial assistance for ?400 towards funding of a charity event (held on 4 May 2009 at Hoghton Cricket Club) that appeared on the agenda of the Eastern Area Committee on 20 January 2009 where Councillors Yates, Marsh and Sharratt attended with other members.

3. as chairman of the area committee, Councillor Yates agreed to add the application to the agenda as urgent business, made no declaration of any interest in relation to the application and voted in favour of this grant.

4. the application was granted with payment limited to ?200.

5. Councillor Yates was acting in his official capacity (as defined by paragraph 2.1 of the Code of Conduct) as a Councillor when he attended the meeting of Eastern Area Committee on 20 January 2009.

6. the evidence considered in relation to the status of the discussions at the Old Oak public house on the 13 January, 2009 was inconclusive.

7. on the balance of probabilities that Councillor Barrie Yates was not in breach of paragraph 6(a) of the Code of Conduct for Elected members in that Councillor Yates did not use his position improperly to secure an advantage for another.

8. on the balance of probabilities that Councillor Barrie Yates was not in breach of paragraph 12(1) of the Code of Conduct in that it did not consider that his discussions at the Old Oak public house on the 13 January 2009 created a prejudicial interest for the subsequent meeting of Eastern Area Committee (on this basis Councillor Yates was entitled to stay in the room and vote on the matter).

9. having acknowledged the reasoning of the Investigating Officer in relation to the allegation that Councillor Yates had solicited a donation to the Mayor?s charity fund that on a balance of probabilities, Councillor Yates had not solicited such a donation.

10. on the balance of probabilities, Councillor Barrie Yates was in breach of paragraph 9 of the Code of Conduct for Elected members in that his prior knowledge of the application (and/or the fact that his close colleague/associate Councillor Marsh was part of the working party arranging the charitable event in question) was sufficient to create a personal (non prejudicial) interest in the item when it was considered by Eastern Area Committee.

11. Councillor Yates should have declared the existence and nature of his personal interest at the commencement of the meeting (this was in the interests of transparency of decision making).

12. in reaching the conclusion that there had been a breach of paragraph 9, the committee took into account the reasoning of paragraph 7.2 of the Investigating Officer?s report (Paragraph 7.2.1 stated:- ? Cllr Yates chaired a committee meeting without declaring any knowledge of, or interest in, the application for financial assistance. He had been present at a meeting when that application was discussed.? Paragraph 7.2.3 stated: - ?I conclude that a member of the public would consider that he had a personal interest in the event.?)

(B) Subject Member: Councillor Marsh

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY FOUND: ?

that ?

1. Councillor Marsh was acting in his official capacity (as defined by paragraph 2.1 of the Code of Conduct) as a councillor when he attended the meeting of Eastern Area Committee on the 20th of January 2009.

2. on the evidence before it, and on the balance of probabilities, that Councillor Marsh was in breach of paragraph 12(1) of the Code of Conduct.

3. the involvement of Councillor Marsh in the working party concerned was such as to create a prejudicial interest when the application for the grant was discussed at Eastern Area Committee.

4. a member of the public, who reasonably knew the relevant facts, would reasonably think the personal interest to be so significant that it was likely to prejudice Councillor Marsh?s judgement of the public interest (on this basis Councillor Marsh should have left the room when the matter was being discussed by Eastern Area Committee).

5. on the evidence before it, and on the balance of probabilities, Councillor Marsh was not in breach of paragraph 6(a) of the Code of Conduct for Elected members in that it considered that there was insufficient evidence that Councillor Marsh had improperly used his influence as a member to gain advantage for another (it is true that he had failed to declare a prejudicial interest but there was not improper conduct in any other regard).

6. there were no sense of deliberate wrongdoing in this case or suggestion of personal gain for the councillor concerned (the cricket match in question was to be a charity event and that Councillor Marsh was well intentioned throughout).

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED:

(A) Subject Member: Councillor Yates

That the following sanction should be imposed: -

that it was just and proportionate to require Councillor Yates to undergo training on the Code of Conduct for Elected Members (with particular emphasis on the issues relevant to this hearing) and this training to be arranged by the council?s Monitoring Officer.

(B) Subject Member: Councillor Marsh

That the following sanction should be imposed: -

that it was just and proportionate to require Councillor Marsh to undergo further training on the Code of Conduct for Elected Members for failing to comply with paragraph 12(1) of the Code of Conduct although on 8 October 2009 Standards Committee had already decided that Councillor Marsh should undergo training in relation to a separate breach of the Code. The required training for the two separate breaches would be combined and this training to be arranged by the council?s Monitoring Officer.
 Agreed  Corporate Director (Policy & Neighbourhoods)Head of Corporate Governance, Legal Services Manager
40 Standards Committee Hearings ? Public Notice Requirement
Wyre BC correspondence attached

(Councillor Yates declared a personal (but non-prejudicial) interest in this item as he was the subject member of the above (minute no. 39 refers) but as any procedural changes would not take effect immediately, he was able under the Code of Conduct for elected members to take part in the discussion and the voting thereon.)

A letter and correspondence was submitted by Wyre Borough Council asking the council for support for that council?s stance in respect of the current requirement to issue a public notice in a local newspaper following a Standards Committee hearing.

All members present at the meeting fully understood the reasoning behind this request. Whilst acknowledging that the cost of producing and advertising the public notice added no value and, such notice was not needed as these details were published on the council?s website (including a press release), the committee was not overly optimistic that the government would change the current requirements, but wished Wyre Borough Council well in their endeavours.

RESOLVED: that following the comments made at the meeting, Wyre Borough Council?s stance in respect of the public notice requirement be noted and that this council wishes them well in their endeavours.
 Agreed  Head of Corporate Governance, Senior Democratic Services Officer
41 North West Independent Members? Forum
Wyre BC correspondence attached

The committee considered a letter from Wyre Borough Council on views over the formation of a Lancashire Independent Members? Forum.

RESOLVED: that the committee supported the wider north west forum of meetings and felt that ?

(i) these meetings were very useful to Independent Members as they provided an opportunity to discuss common problems and to share good practice and experiences;

(ii) attendance at these meetings should be extended to include an additional Independent Member (Independent Chairman's nominee); and

(iii) Central Lancashire was well placed with good transportation links for such meetings.
 Agreed  Head of Corporate Governance, Senior Democratic Services Officer

  Published on Wednesday 23 December 2009
The meeting finished at 3.35pm