Agenda and minutes

A parish representative to be appointed.  

Councillor Trevor Holmes was appointed parish representative for minute no. 19 and Councillor Peter Dolby for minute no. 20.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Mike Williams.

Members are asked to declare interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

Councillor Trevor Holmes declared a personal interest in minute no. 20. He therefore stood down from the panel for this item.

Report number DLS56 by the Solicitor to the Council (Deputy Monitoring Officer).

(Enclosure)

Decision:

This is a difficult area in respect of the Guidance given from the Standards Board for England. We believe that all parties, including the complainant, acted in good faith. Most importantly, the Monitoring Officer gave appropriate advice to the members at the time.  The events concluded in December 2004. Final clarification on the Guidance was received by the Monitoring Officer in March 2005. We are content that the advice he has now given to members and parish councils concerning dual-hatted members is correct and appropriate.  There has been no breach of the Code of Conduct.  

The Chairman introduced the investigation, the members of the panel and the officers present. He asked members to disclose any interests in the matter; none was declared. He confirmed that the quorum for a hearing was present and explained the procedure to follow. He reminded the Panel that the investigation was confined to matters relating to the Code of Conduct and the alleged breach. The Member Services Manager advised that the confidential reports relating to the investigation were now in the public domain.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that this investigation had been referred for local determination under Section 66 of the Local Government Act 2000 and she had been appointed Investigator because the Monitoring Officer had provided advice to the two members under investigation.

The Investigator presented her report. She detailed the allegation, the relevant section of the Code of Conduct, the evidence obtained and her conclusions. Exhibits had been circulated. The allegation was that Councillors Neal and Bryant may have had a conflict of interest when dealing with matters concerning the South Kesteven Citizens’ Advice Bureau (SKCAB). The Investigator’s finding was that there had been no breach of the Code of Conduct.

The Panel was invited to ask questions of the Investigator. Further clarification was sought on the status of the members as trustees of the SKCAB. The Investigator confirmed that whilst there had been some initial confusion on the part of one member, the SKCAB had confirmed at their first meeting with the members that they were not trustees. This was supported in writing in the exhibits. The Investigator was asked about the accuracy of press coverage of the members’ status and she acknowledged that the public, including the complainant, had not been in full knowledge of the facts of the situation.

Councillors Neal and Bryant were not present to respond.

The Monitoring Officer was called by the Investigator to give evidence. He was invited to explain to the Panel the advice he had provided to the two members on declaring an interest for matters relating to the SKCAB. This advice on compliance with the Code had been sought and acted upon by the two members. The Monitoring Officer explained in detail the background to the Council’s approach to declaring interests when members were appointed as representatives on outside bodies.  Prior to guidance on dual-hatted members published by the Standards Board, under rule 10(2) of the Code, if a member was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Report number DLS57 by the Monitoring Officer.

(Enclosure)

Decision:

(1)  Matters regarding planning can be contentious and lead to strong feelings. In this case, Councillor Cudmore took a very prominent role on behalf of the people of Bourne and displayed robust opposition for a proposal which was also roundly rejected by both the Town Council and the people of Bourne. However, his article on a public website did breach the Code of Conduct in that the words used were directly disrespectful to an officer of South Kesteven District Council in terms of inappropriate language, which in the judgement of the Standards Committee, would lead the public to question the impartiality and integrity of that officer. In our judgement, to accuse South Kesteven District Council Planning and Economic Regeneration Directorate of  “treachery” in a public forum is to bring both South Kesteven District Council and Bourne Town Council into disrepute.

(2)  The issue in this case is the use of words in a public forum by a Councillor who has signed the Code of Conduct. The Standards Committee recognises that Councillor Cudmore accepts that in retrospect his comments were over the top in terms of the precise use of words. We also want to make it very clear that the right of a Councillor to express the views of his Council and those he represents must not be constrained by rules and regulations – it is a matter of balance.

We apply the sanction of censure to Councillor Cudmore and offer him two pieces of advice:

·          He may wish to apologise to those concerned.

·          He may feel it useful to arrange to see the Chairman or Vice-Chairman and Monitoring Officer to talk through the implications of the Code of Conduct informally.

We are grateful for the open way Councillor Cudmore explained his actions today and that he accepts that in hindsight the language he used in the article may not have been best judged.

On a wider note, this committee is very well aware of the lack of understanding of the full implications of the Code of Conduct at Parish Council and Town Council level and the degree of strong feelings which surround planning issues and declarations of interest. However, it is the position of the Committee that the Code is a major contribution to transparency and accountability in those contentious matters, if used properly.

The Committee sympathises that this may have been a “sledge hammer to crack a nut” but we are in the early days of the Code and there are important messages to be conveyed with the intention of raising public confidence in local government.

The Chairman introduced the investigation, the members of the panel and the officers present. He asked members to disclose any interests in the matter; during the course of the meeting, Councillor Wilks, who might have been a member of the Development Control Committee at the time the incidents relating to the investigation occurred, declared that he may have a personal interest. The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that he would not have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

The meeting closed at 2.15p.m.