Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no Reserve Members in attendance.

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED: To note that the following interest was declared:

Agenda Item 7 – The Standards Regime

Dr John Kirkland and Mr Derek Lawrence declared prejudicial interests in relation to the recommendations in the report relating to the Independent Members, as this was a role they currently occupied.  They would therefore leave the room whilst the recommendations relating directly to the Independent Members were considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2012 and the special meeting held on 9 May 2012 (To Follow) be taken as read and signed as correct records.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 29 February 2012 and the special meeting held on 9 May 2012 be taken as read and signed as correct records.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 17 (Part 4B of the Constitution).

 RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received at this meeting.

Report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services.

The Chairman introduced the report and explained that the Committee were required to make a decision on the report to allow recommendations to be submitted to the Full Council meeting on 5 July 2012.  The report was divided into several themes.  The first theme to be considered was the future arrangements to deal with complaints against Members.

The Head of Legal Services explained that a flow chart had been contained in the report to provide a visual representation of the process.  The officer also reported the following points:

·                    the complaints process had included a filter at an initial stage to rule out complaints which were not within the scope of the Code of Conduct and / or which were vexatious;

·                    the complaint then progressed to an informal Assessment Working Group who could form recommendations on whether an investigation should take place or if there should be no further action;

·                    if there was disagreement on the outcomes reached by the Assessment Working Group between the Monitoring Officer and the relevant Independent Person, the complaint would then be referred to a formal Assessment Sub-Committee.  They could formally decide whether to carry out an investigation or whether there should be no further action;

·                    if an investigation was conducted and concluded, is proceeded to the Hearing Sub-Committee who could hear evidence and require people to attend.

During the discussion on this theme, Members raised a number of issues which the officer responded to as follows:

·                    there had been an alternative structure proposed by inserting an additional tier before the Hearing Sub-Committee.  This would involve having a Hearing Working Group.  This would have a similar role to the Assessment Working Group but would consider the investigation report prior to making any recommendations to the Monitoring Officer.  Officers had concerns with this proposed body in that it would not be formal and may encounter difficulties in getting parties to attend its meetings;

·                    sanctions imposed as a result of a complaint had to be determined either by a formal body or the Monitoring Officer;

·                    it was important to note that there had only been four formal Hearings held since 2007, which was a relatively low number.

During the discussion on this theme, Members of the Committee made a number of wide-ranging comments as follows:

·                    there were concerns that the Hearing Sub-Committee was not being chaired by an Independent Person.  This could mean that the public perception would be significantly impacted upon in terms of dealing with and resolving complaints fairly;

·                    retaining Independent Members as part of the complaints process was vital and it was important for the public perception that Independent Members played a key role in their determination;

·                    if all Members did not support the proposed structure for dealing with complaints, it would not operate successfully;

·                    there were concerns that there had not been any discussions between the political groups on the Council concerning the future arrangements in relation to complaints;

·                    it was believed that any Hearing body would not meet often, but when it did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.