Agenda and minutes

A parish representative to be appointed.  

Councillors Robert Rose (Thurlby Parish Council) and Vicky Dennis (Castle Bytham Parish Council) were appointed as parish representatives with voting rights for this meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Philip Knowles (Bourne Town Council), Stephen Pearson (Long Bennington Parish Council) and Irene Greenwood (Colsterworth and District Parish Council).

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

No declarations of interest were made.

                                                                                           (Enclosure)

The minutes of the meeting held on Friday 4 March 2011.

                                                                                           (Enclosure)

The Chairman welcomed new members to the Committee. In so doing, he provided a summary of the culture, processes and format used by South Kesteven District Council’s Standards Committee.

Committee culture

·           At the heart of the Local Government Act 2000 was the idea of bringing more support and public confidence into local councils. Standards and the Code of Conduct were part of that, providing a framework through which councillors could operate.

·           Standards arrangements were mandatory and issued from the top down. South Kesteven District Council’s processes were developed to support the requirements of the legislation.

·           Key to the Council’s process was transparency, clarity and fairness for all involved parties.

Localism Bill

·           The Committee was awaiting definitive information on provisions in the Localism Bill that would abolish the Code of Conduct and separate town and parish councils from district councils.

·           In the past the Committee had considered possible courses of action following the abolition of the Standards regime.

Assessment process

·           When a complaint against a councillor is received, an assessment sub-committee comprising three Standards Committee members (1 parish/town councillor, 1 district councillor and one independent member chairing - typically the vice-chairman) is called.

·           No complaint can be dealt with at officer level without being seen by the assessment sub-committee unless it is clear the complaint did not refer to a current member, did not relate to a breach of the Code of Conduct or that person was not acting as a Member at the time of the alleged incident.

·           The sub-committee is held in private and operates on a fairly informal basis.

·           The complainant must complete a pro-forma, which is supplied to the sub-committee by the monitoring officer (or representative) together with relevant parts of the Code of Conduct and a matrix to help decide whether an investigation is required. This is circulated prior to the meeting.

·           If the Monitoring Officer or her representative felt there was insufficient information for the sub-committee to make their decision, they would ask the complainant for additional information.

·           On the day of the assessment, the sub-committee must use the evidence before them to determine what should happen with the complaint.

·           The sub-committee could decide to proceed to investigation, adjourn to give a complainant the opportunity to submit further information or that the complaint did not warrant investigation.

·           If the sub-committee decided a complaint did not warrant investigation, the complainant had the right of appeal with three different members of the Committee.

·           The Monitoring Officer or her representative will attend the assessment sub-committee to provide legal advice.

·           To help the sub-committee make their decision, the checklist that must be completed includes questions like if the allegations proved true, has the Code of Conduct been breached; would an investigation be a good use of resources and is it a tit-for-tat political situation.

·           Hearings are held as soon after receipt of the complaint as possible, ideally within 20 days.

·           As part of the complaint pro forma, the complainant must say whether they want the complaint and their identity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report number LDS027 by the Chairman of the Committee.      (Enclosure)

The chairman explained that the Standards Committee submitted a report to the full Council on an annual basis. The report for 2010/11 would be considered on Thursday 7 July 2011. Historically the report had included statistics about the committee’s work and emerging issues. 15 complaints had been received, 5 of which were progressed for investigation. The Chairman also proposed to speak to councillors about the Localism Bill and the impact it would have on the standards regime.

The district council had a duty to promote and maintain high standards of conduct, so there would be provision for the Council to adopt its own voluntary code of conduct. It was noted that there would be no legal provision for the sanctioning of Members found in breach of any local code of conduct.

Parish members at the meeting stated that it would be difficult for any issues to be addressed at parish level; trying to resolve complaints at that level could cause local frictions. Concerns were also expressed about the potential lack of consistency between parishes and resourcing to deal with any complaints. One option that had been discussed in the past was that the district council create a local framework and invite parishes to subscribe to that framework.

A member of the Committee read a section of a briefing note produced by the National Association of Local Councils, which advised parish and town councils not to adopt any form of voluntary code of conduct following the abolition of the Standards regime.

At the meeting on 7 July 2011, the Chairman would volunteer the Committee to look at possible options for Standards on behalf of the Council. Those proposals would be fed to the Engagement Policy Development Group for them to consider and make recommendations. It was proposed that a working group be created to formulate options for the council’s consideration. Members of the Committee felt this approach would be appropriate.

No applications had been received at the time of agenda preparation.

No applications for dispensation had been received.

There were two outstanding assessments and one outstanding hearing. It was proposed an additional meeting be held in July to hear the outstanding case.

The meeting closed at 15:46.

Future meetings of the Committee as agreed at the Council meeting on 19 May 2011 were:

·         Friday 2 September 2011, 2:30pm

·         Friday 4 November 2011, 2:30pm

·         Friday 6 January 2012, 2:30pm

·         Friday 2 March 2012, 2:30pm