Standards Committee - Tuesday 3 June 2008

Present at the meeting:

Elected Members

Councillor Mrs S Dewhurst
Councillor J Ellis
Councillor B J Fagan
Councillor Mrs J Prescott
Councillor C Ready
Councillor P Thompson
Councillor F B Walker
Councillor R Winkworth

Independent Members

Mr G Wood (Chairman)
Mr R Kidd
Mr D A Lea
Mrs P A Wheal
Mr P G Pennington

Parish Council Members

Councillor Mrs M A Thomson (Haigh)

1 Welcome to new Members: On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman extended a warm welcome to Councillors J Ellis and C Ready.

2 Apologies for absence: Councillor P Thompson and Councillor M J Crosby (Shevington Parish Council).

3 Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 18 March 2008 were approved as a correct record.

4 Exclusion of the public - Section 100a Local Government Act 1972: Resolved: The public is excluded from the meeting when the Committee discusses the following item for the reason set out below:-

Agenda item no.	Title of report	Minute no.	Description of exempt information by reference to the paragraph number in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
E1	Standard Board decisions	10	1 (Information about any named person). The public interest in making the exception is that the Standards Board itself does not publish the decision as they have not been the subject of a full investigation

Agenda item no.

Title of report

Minute no.

Description of exempt information by reference to the paragraph number in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

Standard Board decisions

1 (Information about any named person).

The public interest in making the exception is that the Standards Board itself does not publish the decision as they have not been the subject of a full investigation

5 Appointment of Vice Chairman: Resolved: Councillor F B Walker is appointed Vice Chairman of this Committee for the ensuing Municipal Year.

6 Adjudication panel for England/ethical standards officers’ decisions: There were none.

7 Local assessment – introduction of procedural arrangements, consideration of guidance and Training: The Committee considered a report that informed Members of the introduction of the Local Assessment Complaints Procedure.

The report sought Members approval to the necessary steps to implement the required provisions.

The Committee was advised that under the local assessment complaints procedure, there was now a requirement to establish two sub-committees, an Assessment Sub-Committee, which would consider how to handle complaints, and a Review Sub-Committee, which would review decisions of the Assessment Sub-Committee to take no further action when the complainant appealed against that decision. The Committee’s views were sought on the suggested constitution of the two sub committees.

The Committee suggested that the Assessment Sub-Committee should consist of six Members made up of four elected Members and two independent Members. However, the Committee considered that the Review Sub-Committee should only consist of four elected Members and two Independent Members. Each sub committee should be supplemented by a Parish Council representative. Panels of three Members to be chaired by an independent Member would be convened to deal with cases as they were received, supplemented by a Parish Council representative if the case concerned a Parish Council Member. The Committee also suggested that there should be a degree of flexibility for the Independent Members to support each other in attending either sub committee, provided that the same Member would not be able to review a decision of an Assessment sub committee that they had sat on.

To ensure that there would be sufficient Parish Council Members to support the sub committees, the Committee recommended that the Parish Council representatives be permitted to appoint a substitute Parish Council representative approved by the Committee in the event that either of the Parish Council representatives was unable to attend either sub committee when a case concerning a Parish Council Member was considered.

Members considered the procedural arrangements suggested in the report in relation to the assessments and the criteria for assessment.

Resolved: The Committee:-

agrees to establish an Assessment sub-committee consisting of four Elected Members and two Independent Members to meet in panels of not less than three chaired by an independent Member and to include where appropriate a Parish Council representative, the initial Members being Councillors Mrs J Prescott, P Thompson, F B Walker and R Winkworth and Mr R Kidd and Mr P G Pennington;
agrees to establish a Review sub-committee consisting of two Elected Members and two Independent Members to meet in panels of not less than three Members chaired by an independent Member and to include, where appropriate, a Parish Council representative, the initial Members being Councillors Mrs S Dewhurst, J Ellis, B J Fagan and C Ready and Mr D A Lea and Mrs P A Wheal;
agrees that the Independent Members can, where necessary, to enable the sub committees to operate properly, attend either sub committee provided that they cannot attend a Review sub committee relating to a review of a decision that they had had an involvement in;
requests the Monitoring Officer to undertake the necessary publicity arrangements, pre-assessment arrangements to establish the assessment process; and
approves the assessment criteria and the necessary arrangements for confidentiality and anonymous complaints suggested in the report.

8 Parish issues: There were none.

9 Discussion period for Members to raise issues: Resolved: (1) The Committee authorises the Monitoring Officer to arrange internal training sessions for Members to consider the Code of Conduct and new regulations.

(2) The Committee authorises the Monitoring Officer to make the necessary arrangements to secure four places for attendance at the Standards Board Conference in October 2008.

(3) The Committee authorises the Monitoring Officer to move forward with previous proposals in relation to ethical standards training and mediation (minute 49 of January 2008 refers).

(4) The Committee authorises the Monitoring Officer to enter into discussions with the Independent Members with regard to seeking the possible re-appointment of those Members whose terms of office are to expire in 2008 and to make the necessary arrangements to seek new nominations for Members who do not wish to be re-appointed.

10 Standards Board decisions – (a) Case SBE22024.08: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the above-mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member:-

had made reference within two election leaflets for an election candidate, to particular projects which had been funded in the local area, with the Council source of the funding mentioned;
in mentioning the source of funding, had abused his position as a Member for political purposes; and
had misled officers as to the purpose of the funding.

The complainant had also questioned the priority of where some of the funding had allegedly been spent. The complainant alleged that a significant amount of money had gone to a church pavilion project, and that the Member’s family had a close relationship with the church. It was further alleged that the Member was a member of the church cricket club, the choir and that his wife was an active member of the church.

No information was provided with the complaint to suggest that the Member was responsible for the content or production of the election leaflets, nor was any information provided to substantiate the allegation that the Member had misled officers as to where the money was to be spent. Additionally, whilst the complainant contended that the Member had a prejudicial interest in issues relating to the church, no information was provided on how the pavilion project was linked to the church, how money was given to the church and how the Member may have participated in these issues.

On the basis of the information provided, the Standards Board for England had decided that the allegation should not be referred to an ethical standards officer for investigation. Having taken account of the available information, the Standards Board for England did not believe that a potential breach of the Code of Conduct was disclosed. The Standards Board for England made no finding of fact.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the report.

(Councillor J Ellis declared a prejudicial interest in this item because of his connection with the issue and left the meeting prior to consideration of this item).

(b) Case SBE21720.08: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the above-mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had supported an application for Brighter Borough funding, knowing that another Member had a personal and prejudicial interest in the application.

The complainant alleged that during the period 2004/05 to 2007, £16,745 had been allocated to a single organisation. The complainant explained that this represented approximately one third of the total funding allocated for the whole of the ward concerned during the period referred to.

Whilst the Standards Board for England recognised that the complainant had alleged that another member potentially had a personal and prejudicial interest in the issue, the onus was on that member to declare this and act accordingly under the Code of Conduct. No potential breach of the Code was disclosed by the allegation that the Member was aware of the interest and continued to support the funding applications.

The Standards Board for England had decided that the allegation should not be referred to an ethical standards officer for investigation. Having taken account of the available information, the Standards Board for England did not believe that a potential breach of the Code of Conduct was disclosed. The Standards Board for England made no finding of fact.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the report.

(c) Case SBE21721.08: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the above-mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had supported an application for Brighter Borough funding, knowing that another Member had a personal and prejudicial interest in the application.

Resolved: The Committee accepts the report.

(d) Case SBE21674.08: The Committee considered the findings of the Referrals Unit for the Standards Board for England in the above-mentioned case. This related to an allegation that a Member had failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in an application at a meeting of the Planning Committee.

The complainant alleged that the Member’s son in law purchased a property which had planning permission attached. When the planning application was originally considered by the Planning Committee, it is alleged that the Member sat on the Committee and voted. The application was reportedly refused. It was alleged that since that meeting, the Member’s son in law purchased the property and submitted another application for planning permission but the Council failed to notify any of the bordering properties, as they were required to do so. The application was reportedly dealt with under delegated powers as no objections had been received and it was granted with 18 planning conditions.

The complainant further alleged that the conditions had not been met and that the Council had issued four notices to the Member’s son in law to stop any building. The complainant alleged that the Member continued to help his son in law with building the house. The complainant stated that that it was not right, as an Elected Member of the Council and a member of the Planning Committee, for the Member to ignore the Council’s request and that the Member had brought his office into disrepute as a result. Furthermore it was alleged that the Member should have acted in accordance with the Council’s requirements and stopped the building.

The Standards Board for England recognised that at the time the Planning Committee considered the first planning application, the member’s son in law did not have an interest in the property. The Standards Board for England acknowledged that the complainant felt that the Member should not have assisted his son in law with the building when it was allegedly in breach of the conditions of the planning permission. The Standards Board for England believed that the Member’s actions in this regard were considered to concern his private capacity rather than his official capacity as an Elected Member. The Code of Conduct only applied to members when they acted in their official capacity, including when they conducted the business of their authority or act, claim to be acting, or give the impression they are acting, in their official capacity or as a representative of their authority. This did not appear to be the case in this instance and therefore the Code did not apply.