Agenda 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 appointed to body and a related matter was being discussed, providing that member was speaking at a Council meeting, they had to make it clear that they were the appointed representative; they were then fully able to speak and vote and this was taken to be the equivalent of the declaration of a personal interest. This approach had been developed because it was found to be very useful for the Council as it was able to gain knowledge about that body and thereby come to an informed decision. A member on an outside body could not have had a prejudicial interest because they had been appointed to that body and could speak about that body from the council perspective. This was the advice provided to the two members. 

It was estimated that the published guidance from the Standards Board for England was received in early November 2004. The Monitoring Officer considered that the guidance was clear in that if the Council is making a decision affecting the finances of an outside body, the member has a prejudicial interest. This, however, in his view was covering those members that have a controlling interest within the outside body, that is, a position of control: trustee, director, or member of the management committee. The Monitoring Officer considered that in those situations, members had the power to control that outside body. If a member was appointed in that capacity, they were bound by the rules of that organisation. There was a difference between that and a member who was only a representative on that outside body. In those circumstances, a member that was a mere representative would not be in a prejudicial position because they did not have power within that outside body.

Timing of the publication of the Standards Board’s guidance was very important in this investigation. The Standards Committee, as per its normal practice, had considered the guidance at its meeting on 26^th November 2004. Other Councillors were informed of the guidance in January 2005, following the conclusions of the Committee. The advice provided to the two members had been given prior to this. Only some time after these events had the Standards Board confirmed to the Monitoring Officer that the guidance related to members who were only representatives on outside bodies, irrespective of whether or not they had a power of control in relation to that outside body.

The Panel was invited to ask questions of the Monitoring Officer. Clarification on certain facts was sought and the Panel confirmed that it had sufficient evidence to determine the investigation.

The press, public, investigator and witness left the room. Considering the facts presented to them, the Panel concluded that there had been no breach of the Code of Conduct.

The press, public, investigator and witness returned to the meeting and were informed of the Panel’s decision, as noted above.