| 15 |
REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 66 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 - COUNCILLOR R NIXON
|
The Committee considered the summary of the case and the procedural issues addressed to date, attached at Appendix C to the Agenda, together with the report of the Investigator, attached at Appendix D. Relevant parties namely Councillor R.J. Nixon and Mr. K. Malde, the investigator of the complaint relating to an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct were present.
At the request of Councillor Nixon, the Committee also considered additional correspondence from the Chief Executive's department in relation to the letter detailed on pages 30-33 of the Agenda and Councillor Nixon's complaint under the Council's complaints procedure. The Investigator indicated that he had no objection to the submission of this additional correspondence.
The Committee noted that in accordance with Paragraph 2 (iii) of the Hearing Procedure, the only outstanding issue to be determined related to the paragraph, as detailed at the top of page 28, Appendix C relating to disagreements over findings of fact. At Councillor Nixon's request and with no objection from Mr. Malde, this paragraph was included in the Investigators report at paragraph 3.2.
The Chairman then invited both parties to make representations. Neither Councillor Nixon nor Mr. Malde called any witnesses during the course of their submissions and the Committee had no further questions to ask in relation to the representations made by either of the parties.
The meeting then adjourned so that the Committee could (a) consider the submissions of both parties and (b) decide whether a breach had occurred.
With reference to the decision as to whether Councillor Nixon had breached the Code of Conduct, the Standards Committee reached the following decision:
RESOLVED that, having carefully considered all the papers and the representations submitted to the Standards Committee:
(i) allegation 1 is proved and Councillor Nixon breached the Code in that he used his position to gain a personal advantage and an advantage for others at Elbourne House, Horley. These are both breaches of paragraph 5(a) of the Code of Conduct; and
(ii) allegation 2 is also found to have been proved and Councillor Nixon brought his office into disrepute by the actions he took. This is a breach of paragraph 4 of the Code.
Relevant parties made representations on the decision that the Code had been breached whereupon the Committee adjourned to consider the sanctions, if any, that should be applied.
With reference to the decision in relation to the sanctions to be placed on Councillor Nixon, the Standards Committee reached the following decision:
That although this was a serious matter, Councillor Nixon should be given credit for his apology and the fact that he was a new Councillor when the breaches first occurred.
The Standards Committee therefore
RESOLVED that:
(i) Councillor Nixon's Council pass card be removed for a period of one month, thereby preventing access;
(ii) Councillor Nixon's direct access to the planning department be revoked for two months; and
(iii) Councillor Nixon be required to attend an external training course on the Code of Conduct, as approved by the Monitoring Officer, as soon as it can be arranged.
The Chairman informed all those present that a full written decision would be sent to all parties as soon as possible and in any event within the next 10 working days.
(NOTE: The decision would include a definition as to the resources to which access would be restricted, as intended by the removal of Councillor Nixon's pass card).
|