Agenda item

Report number LDS072 by the Governance and Communication Portfolio Holder.          (Enclosure)

Decision:

 

1.    The Council adopts the draft Members’ Code of Conduct attached as Appendix A to report number LDS072.

2.    The Council adopts arrangements to deal with complaints made about District Councillors set out in Appendix B to report number LDS072 and considers arrangements for dealing with complaints about parish and town councillors.

3.    That the Monitoring Officer be appointed as the Proper Officer to receive complaints of failure to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct by district, town and parish councillors, with authority to delegate the function of dealing with the complaints relating to parish and town councillors to the relevant town or parish council where appropriate.

4.    The Council approves the appointment of Mr Fred Mann as the Independent Person and the Venerable Tim Barker as the reserve.

5.    That the Monitoring Officer be given delegated authority, after consultation with the Independent Person or reserve, to determine whether a complaint merits formal investigation and to arrange such investigation.

6.    That the Council disband the Standards Committee and delegate to the Review Board (see Constitution page 82) the authority to receive reports on investigation carried out into alleged failure to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct, to consider whether a complaint should be investigated as required by the Monitoring Officer, determine the outcome of investigations and report findings to Council as and when required by the Review Board.

7.    That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to seek resolution of complaints without formal investigation wherever practicable, and that the Monitoring Officer be given discretion to refer decisions on investigation to the Review Board where it is inappropriate for the Monitoring Officer to take the decision.

8.    Where an investigation finds no evidence of failure to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer is instructed to close the matter, providing a copy of the report and findings of the investigation to the complainant, to the Member concerned and to the Independent Person.

9.    Where the investigation finds evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Independent Person is authorised to seek local resolution in appropriate cases with a summary report for information to the Council. Where such local resolution is not appropriate or not possible, the Monitoring Officer is to report the investigation findings to the Review Board for local hearing and determination.

10.That the Council delegate to the Review Board such of its powers as can be delegated to take decisions in respect of a member who is found on hearing to have failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, such actions to include:

·         Reporting its findings to Council [or the Town or Parish Council] for information.

·         Recommending to the Member’s Group leader (or in the case of ungrouped Members, recommend to Council or to Committees) that he/she be removed from any or all Committees or Sub-Committees of the Council.

·         Recommending to the Leader of the Council that the Member be removed from the Cabinet, or removed from particular Portfolio responsibilities.

·         Instructing the Monitoring Officer to [or recommend that the Town or Parish Council] arrange training for the member.

·         Recommending to Council that the Member be removed [or recommend to the Town or Parish Council that the Member be removed] from all outside appointments to which he/she has been appointed or nominated by the authority [or by the Town or Parish Council].

·         Withdrawing [or recommend to the Town or Parish Council that it withdraws] facilities provided to the Member by the Council, such as a computer, website and/or email and internet access.

·         Excluding [or recommend that the Town or Parish Council exclude] the Member from the Council’s offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council, Committee or sub-Committee meetings.

11.That the Council adopt a Council Procedure Rule requiring Members to leave the room of any meeting which they attend where they have registered a disclosable pecuniary interest and/or have disclosed an interest in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct in any item of business at that meeting. The proposed procedure rule will equate to the current code of conduct requirement that a member must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole of consideration of any item of the business in which he/she has an interest, except where they are permitted to remain as a result of the grant of a dispensation.

12.That the Monitoring Officer be granted delegated authority to consider and determine applications for dispensations in accordance with the legislation relating to dispensations to allow Members to participate and vote in any decision where they have an interest. In the event that the Monitoring Officer is unable to determine such an application for dispensation, the Monitoring Officer is authorised to refer that application to the Review Board for consideration and determination.

13.The Council approves appropriate amendments to the Constitution to enable the approved provisions to be documented in the Constitution.

 

In proposing the recommendations in report number LDS072 on the Members’ Code of Conduct and Interests, the Governance and Communication Portfolio Holder amended recommendation 1.2 and 1.3, changing “parish and town councils” to “parish and town councillors”. This was seconded.

 

The need to adopt a new Members’ Code of Conduct was a requirement of the Localism Act. The proposed code of conduct had been considered by the Standards Committee and the Engagement Policy Development Group before its presentation to Council. It had three key parts: the code of conduct, the complaints procedure and requirement to appoint an Independent Person, and registration and disclosure of interests.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated the proposed Code of Conduct was based on the seven Nolan Principles for Public Life and explained changes in respect of registration and disclosure of interests. New arrangements were also required for dealing with complaints and the Council was required by the Localism Act to appoint an Independent Person. Applications were received from Mr Fred Mann who was nominated as the Independent Person and the Venerable Tim Barker who was nominated as the reserve. Their appointments were proposed for one year.

 

A vote of thanks was expressed to the former Standards Committee Chairman, Mr Chris Holtom CBE and Mr. Fred Mann as the former Vice-Chairman, for their many years of service. Councillors who had been involved with the Standards Committee commended Mr Holtom and Mr Mann on the way they led the process, the support they provided and their discretion and helpfulness. Councillors expressed their appreciation with a round of applause.

 

The Chairman conducted separate votes on each of the recommendations in the report to allow Councillors to propose any amendments.

 

Recommendation 1.1 was put to the vote and carried.

 

An amendment was proposed to recommendation 1.2:

 

“the adoption of arrangements to deal with complaints made about District Councillors set out in Appendix B and consider arrangements for dealing with complaints about parish and town councillors. However, it is not considered fair or just to require a member to have to seek a Judicial Review in order to appeal a decision given the high costs associated with this procedure. It is therefore recommended that an alternative independent appeals mechanism is identified.”

 

This was seconded.

 

Councillors speaking in favour of the amendment argued that judicial review was prohibitively expensive and that any appeals mechanism should be accessible to all in accordance with the principles for natural justice.

 

In speaking against the motion, Councillors highlighted the cost of creating an independent appeals panel for council taxpayers. It was further suggested that there was an opportunity for informal resolution by calling together interested parties and the Independent Person, as described in recommendation 1.9, which should reduce the need for appeal.

 

The Monitoring Officer explained that under the previous system there had been provision for review of a decision at the assessment phase only. After the Committee had determined a hearing following an investigation, the only method of recourse was Judicial Review. The Local Government Ombudsman could provide a complaint  mechanism in instances where there was considered to be maladministration by the Council.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and lost. The recommendation as originally moved was put to the vote and carried.

 

Recommendation 1.3 (as amended by the Portfolio Holder), was put to the vote and carried.

 

Recommendation 1.4, appointing Mr Fred Mann as the Council’s Independent Person and the Venerable Tim Barker as reserve, was put to the vote and carried.

 

Recommendation 1.5 was put to the vote and carried.

 

An amendment was proposed to recommendation 1.6, which was seconded:

 

Instead of using the Council’s existing appeals panel, a new panel should be created comprising members drawn from each of the political party or groups to a maximum of one person per party or group.

 

The proposed scheme included the Council’s appeal panel (any three members from the Licensing Committee and Resources PDG) as per page 82 of the Council’s Constitution.

 

Councillors speaking in support of the motion stated that under the previous arrangements, the Standards Committee comprised one member from each political group, which they considered more reasonable and fair than the proposed panel. They also felt involving representatives from all political groups would increase the independence of the panel.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and lost. The recommendation as originally moved was put to the vote and carried.

 

15:35-15:55   The meeting adjourned

 

Recommendation 1.7 was put to the vote and carried.

 

Recommendation 1.8 was put to the vote and carried.

 

Recommendation 1.9 was put to the vote and carried.

 

Recommendation 1.10 was put to the vote and carried.

 

An amendment was proposed to recommendation 1.11, which was seconded. The amendment would replace the proposal for a Councillor to leave the room during discussion of an item in which they have an interest as defined by the Members’ Code of Conduct with:

 

“Members may not take part in the discussion or vote if they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. There is no statutory requirement for members to leave a meeting if they disclose an interest. However, they should leave their place in the meeting.

 

It will be up to the discretion of the Member to decide whether it is appropriate to adjourn to the public area or whether it is appropriate to leave the room.

 

The decision of the Member should be recorded in the minutes.”

 

Councillors debated the amendment. Those speaking in favour of the amendment considered that Councillors should have the same rights as members of the public, who could be present during meetings when decisions were taken that had an impact on them. They also argued that Councillors should be permitted to listen to the debate and hear the decision, particularly when they are representing the electors in their Ward. This would allow Councillors to understand the reasoning behind any decision.

 

Those who spoke against the amendment suggested that the presence of an interested Councillor at a meeting could be seen to influence a decision or affect the openness of debate. Supporters of the amendment disagreed with this. Councillors also referred to perceptions of members of the public in respect of influence and bias within decision-making.

 

The Monitoring Officer explained that there would still be an opportunity for the granting of dispensations where 50% of councillors would be prevented from participating in a meeting because of interests.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and lost. The recommendation as originally moved was put to the vote and carried.

 

Recommendation 1.12 was put to the vote and carried.

 

Recommendations 1.13 was put to the vote and carried.