Meeting documents

Standards Committee
Wednesday, 4th August, 2010 7.30 pm

Date:
Wednesday, 4th August, 2010
Time:
7.30 p.m.
Place:
Front Committee Room, Town Hall, Reigate
 

Attendance Details

Present:
Councillors Mrs J.S. Bray, Mrs. F.D.M. Dixon, S.A. Kulka, R.C. Newstead and Mrs. R.S. Turner.

Mr. R. Bethell - Horley Town Council
Mrs D. Brooke-Harte - Horley Town Council
Mrs J.A. Cook - Salfords & Sidlow Parish Council

Independent Members
Mr. P. Allen
Mrs. A. Armstrong
Mr. J. Broadbent (Chairman)
Mrs. H. Burr
Dr. C. Vaughan


Also Present:
The Mayor, Councillor D.J. Pay, attended the meeting for item 2 on the agenda.
Min NoDescriptionResolution
Part I
1 1. CONSENT FOR THE MAYOR TO TAKE THE CHAIR
In accordance with paragraph 11.2 of the Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rules set out in the Constitution, the Committee is requested to give consent for the Mayor to take the Chair for the next item of business.

 RESOLVED that in accordance with the Council's Constitution, consent be given for the Mayor to take the Chair for the next item of business.
2 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
 RESOLVED that Mr. J. Broadbent (Independent Member) be elected Chairman of the Committee for the Municipal Year 2010/11.

Mr Broadbent took the Chair.
3 ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
 RESOLVED that Mr. P. Allen (Independent Member) be elected Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the Municipal Year 2010/11.
4 MINUTES
 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed.
5 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
 There were no apologies for absence.
6 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
 Councillor Mrs J.S. Bray declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 13 on the agenda. This was because the Councillor under investigation was a member of the same political group and had supported and attended a number of events she had officiated as deputy Mayor during 2009/10 (and could therefore be considered a "relevant person" under the Code of Conduct). Councillor Mrs Bray left the meeting during consideration of this item.
7 WORK PROGRAMME 2010/11
Minute for Minute Number 7
RESOLVED that the work programme for 2010/11 be noted.
8 STANDARDS FOR ENGLAND
Minute for Minute Number 8
RESOLVED that the Government's intention to alter the current standards regime and abolish Standards for England be noted.
9 SURREY INDEPENDENT MEMBERS RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT
Minute for Minute Number 9
RESOLVED not to participate in the agreement at this stage, but to request the Monitoring Officer to monitor how the agreement operates in practice, and to report back after one year so that it might review its decision.
10 SURREY IMPROVEMENT PARTNERSHIP MEMBER DEVELOPMENT EVENT - STANDARDS AND THE ETHICAL FRAMEWORK
Minute for Minute Number 10
RESOLVED that:

(i) Mrs Burr and Mr Allen be thanked for attending the SIP Member Development event - Standards and the Ethical Framework - and for their helpful report back to Committee; and
(ii) the issues (and related documents) raised in the report by them be built into the Committee's work programme and considered on a rolling basis throughout the 2010/11 municipal year.
11 ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS
 None.
12 EXEMPT BUSINESS
 RESOLVED that members of the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that:

(i) it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 7(c)of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act; and

(ii) the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

Part II(Confidential)
13 COMPLAINT AGAINST A BOROUGH COUNCILLOR ALLEGING A BREACH OF THE MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT: INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT

To receive the Investigator's report (together with related papers) and agree the next steps.

  • (Attachment: 6)Report of HLPS
  • |
    (Attachment: 7)Investigator's report
  • |
    (Attachment: 8)Appendices
  • |
    (Attachment: 9)Annex - Hearing Timetable
  • |
    (Attachment: 10)Annex 3 - Letter to subject Member
  • |
    (Attachment: 11)Annex 4 - Hearing Procedure Note
  • |
    (Attachment: 12)Annex 4 - Tariff
Minute for Minute Number 13
RESOLVED that:

(i) a Standards (Hearings) Sub-Committee, formed of three members of the Standards Committee, be convened to consider the Investigator's Report as set out in Annex 1, in accordance with the Committee's adopted procedure set out in Annex 4; and

(ii) the matter be dealt with in public.
The meeting closed at 8.45 pm.

Minute

Min NoMinute
7The Committee received a report on proposals for its work programme during the forthcoming municipal year. The programme was a combination of ongoing work items and more specific projects, including a review of the Council's Constitution.

The Committee noted that progress with the work programme would be a standard item on the agenda for future meetings.
8The Committee noted receipt of a letter from the Chairman of Standards of England, dated 1 June 2010, advising colleagues of the government's proposal to remove the Standards Board regime.

The Head of Legal and Property Services reported that it was still unclear how standards matters would be dealt with in the future, but it was unlikely that the whole system would be abolished.

A more likely scenario was that the system would be simplified and the monitoring role would transfer to the Local Government Ombudsman in a move to rationalise the handling of all Council-related complaints under one body.
9The Committee received a report on a proposal to establish a reciprocal arrangement for Surrey whereby independent members could be asked to sit on any Standards Committee or Sub-Committee of an authority party to the agreement, when investigating a complaint.

The intention behind the proposal was to have a wider pool of independent members to call upon to ensure all initial assessments were dealt with within the deadline of 20 working days. It would also make it easier to form sub-committees for subsequent appeal or review hearings through having more independent members available.

The appendix to the report set out a proposal for how the scheme should operate, to which all authorities wishing to participate were invited to sign up.

The Committee supported the intentions of the proposal but were hesitant about committing to the agreement without knowing how reciprocal it would be and the potential amount of additional work likely to fall upon independent members.

The main concern was the disparity in the number of independent members appointed by the various councils. As an example, Reigate and Banstead Borough Council had appointed five independent members to its Standards Committee, in a deliberate move to ensure it had the capacity to deal with complaints, but other authorities, had only a minimum number despite having considerably more parishes in their area.

In these circumstances, the Committee
10The Committee received a report from on Mrs Burr and Mr Allen's attendance at the SIP member development event on Standards and the Ethical Framework.

Annex 1 to the report set out a number of comments made by them on the content of the course, and raised a number of issues for the consideration of the Committee.

The proposal was that the Committee should consider these issues in a structured manner as part of its ongoing work programme.
13The Committee received a copy of the Investigator's report into a complaint against a Borough Councillor.

The Investigator had been appointed by the Monitoring Officer following the decision of the Standards Review Sub-Committee that the complaint be formally investigated..

The Investigator concluded in the report that there had been a breach of the Code of Conduct on certain points and it was therefore incumbent upon the Committee to hold a hearing.

The annexes to the report before the Committee gave guidance on the process and procedures to be followed leading up to the hearing, which had to be held within 12 weeks of receipt of the investigation report on 22 July 2010.

The Committee was asked to determine whether the hearing should be held in public and to consider the appropriate membership of the Hearing Sub-Committee.

The Committee considered that the public interest outweighed that of the complainant and that the hearing should be held in public. It took note that all references to third parties within the papers would be deleted to prevent their identification.

In respect of the membership of the Sub-Committee, the Committee's view was that it would be preferable for it to be formed of members who had not sat on either the Assessment or the Review Sub-Committees, and that its membership be limited to three.