Meeting documents

Constitution Sub Committee
Thursday 31 July 2014 5.00 pm


CONSTITUTION SUB COMMITTEE

31 JULY 2014

PRESENT: Councillors David Burbage (Chairman), Phill Bicknell and John Fido.

Officers: Maria Lucas and Karen Shepherd

Also Present: Gary Flather (Independent Person)
PART I

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

None

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None

MINUTES
    RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 30 October 2012 be approved.

REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS MADE UNDER THE MEMBERS CODE OF CONDUCT

The Sub Committee considered a number of recommendations from the Independent Person (IP) in relation to the Code of Conduct arrangements, which had been discussed at Full Council in June 2014. It was suggested that paragraph 2.1 of the report be amended for clarity to read:
    ‘The Managing Director must consult the Independent Person before he makes a decision on an allegation, which the Managing Director decided required investigation. In practice the Managing Director considers all complaints received with the Independent Person.

The Monitoring Officer explained that in practice, when the Managing Director received a complaint, he discussed it with the IP. Regularly monthly meetings were held between the IP, Monitoring Officer and Managing Director. It was noted that if a complaint was referred to the police, they were now asking for the view of the IP. Mr Flather, the IP for the Borough, usually gave his views in writing, which was very useful.

Mr Flather commented that usually the public perceived the worst in politicians and presumed that in-house disciplinary action would always be on the side of the councillor. The role of the IP was to provide an outsider’s view.

In relation to the proposal in paragraph 2,2, to define personal interests, the Chairman welcomed the proposal and suggested the definitions taken up by other local authorities should be considered. The Monitoring Officer was requested to discuss the proposed defined list with the IP, for inclusion as an appendix in the Code of Conduct. Mr Flather commented that it would be important to include a definition of a personal interest, how these should be disclosed, and if disclosed, the speaking rights of the member in question.

In relation to the proposal in paragraph 2.4 to not appoint a Deputy IP, it was noted that to date there had been no need for the services of either Deputy IP. One had since resigned. Councillor Fido felt that the borough should keep one Deputy IP; using an IP from another authority was not suitable as it was important that the person knew the borough. An IP from another borough could also be more expensive. Members agreed that the role of Deputy IP should be retained, and suggested that he be invited to attend the regular monthly meetings to ensure he was kept in the loop.

In relation to the proposal in paragraph 2.3 to publish all decision notices whether or not a breach had been found, the Chairman commented that on one side was the transparency argument and on the other the problem of vexatious complaints. Councillors operated in a political environment and therefore there was a tendency to attract ‘mud throwing’. He suggested an alternative option was to publish complaints that did not result in a breach for a certain period of time. The previous Standards Board took down all complaints after two years. He had requested some research be undertaken on how other councils currently dealt with the issue: Aylesbury Vale, Cornwall, Basingstoke and Birmingham all published decision notices, whether or not there had been a breach; Thanet published for a period of 56 days; South Cambridgeshire published only if the complaint went to a hearing, an internal process not in place in the borough.

Councillor Bicknell commented that the previous year he had been complained about, with no breach found. He felt that a perception of guilt was given if a decision was publicised despite no breach. However, he had in this instance agreed to publication of the allegation and the fact that there had not been any breach. Councillor Fido commented that if decisions were not published, a worse headline could be generated given any decision could be sought by the press under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Councillor Bicknell commented that given the low circulation of the local press, publishing could actually lead to more publicity.

Mr Flather commented that he understood the ‘no smoke without fire’ issue, but highlighted that so far no councillor had been repetitively complained about. The press were able to find out any information under the FOI Act therefore the question had to be asked, what did councillors have to conceal? One of the main fears of the public was that complaints made disappeared and they or others interested were unable to find out about the outcome. Not publishing fuelled this perception. He suggested such complaints should be published, but for a maximum of three months. One of the Nolan principles was being open; it was important that residents could see the reasons for which a complaint was dismissed.

The Chairman commented that the ‘closing of the loop’ for the resident or complainant was something that he was trying to achieve for all queries or complaints across the council. Members agreed that publication should take place for a period of 90 days. If the policy caused any problems in future, the issue could be revisited.
    RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That:

    i) The Monitoring Officer and Independent Person be delegated authority, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to draw up an additional appendix to the Code of Conduct to include a defined list of personal interests, details of how such disclosures should be made and the resulting speaking rights.
    ii) The role of Deputy Independent Person be retained.
    iii) Publication of complaints where no breach has been found be adopted, but removed from the borough website after 90 days.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 5.00pm, ended at 5.36pm.

CHAIRMAN……………………………………


                      DATE…………………………………………..