Issue - meetings

The Standards Committee and Constitution Review Working Party RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Procedure for Local Investigations, be approved for incorporation into the Constitution.

A copy of the procedure is attached to this Agenda.

Council RESOLVED that the Procedure for Local Investigations, attached to the Agenda, be approved for incorporation into the Constitution.

Council RESOLVED that the Procedure for Local Investigations, attached to the Agenda, be approved for incorporation into the Constitution.

Deferred from previous meeting.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer’s report and comments received from Standards Committee members before the 25 August 2006 deadline are attached.

For decision. 

The Standards Committee RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Procedure for Local Investigations of Referred Complaints be adopted and included in the Constitution, subject to the following amendments:

(a)               Introduction and Summary, second sentence: “This procedure applies will apply to the investigation of allegations of breaches of the authority’s Code of Conduct for Members for both district and parish councils by elected and co-opted members of the authority and to breaches of the Parish Council Code of Conduct by parish councillors, and the word ‘Councillor’ is to be taken to refer to all such persons.”

(b)               Paragraph 2(b)(ii): “The identity of the person making the allegation (unless on the rare occasion at the outset of the investigation where identification of the complainant might prejudice the investigation or put the complainant at risk, this grant of anonymity being subject to constant review)”;

(c)               Paragraph 2(f): “In notifying the Councillor of receipt of the allegation, the Monitoring Officer shall request the Councillor to respond to the Investigating Officer within 14 30 days of notification…”

(d)               Paragraph 3(d): “Following notification of the allegation to the Councillor…”;

(e)               Paragraph 3(f)(iii), additional sentence: “All interviews will be tape-recorded.”;

(f)                 Paragraph 3(g): “…such fees or allowances as he considers to be appropriate all costs incurred, fees and professional charges subject to the maxima set by the authority”.

(g)               The word “member” replaced with “councillor” throughout; and

(h)               The word “shall” replaced with “will” throughout.

At the last meeting of the Standards Committee it had been agreed that the procedure for local investigations be referred to an extra-ordinary meeting but, when this had proven impossible to schedule, the procedure had been brought to this meeting.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer thanked Councillor A Riley and Mr M Farrar for their comments and hard work reviewing this and the local hearing procedure, explaining that many of their comments had been incorporated into the revised draft.  The Standards Committee currently had a remit to conduct an investigation locally only after an Ethical Standards Officer (ESO) referred a case, but in the future the Standards Committee would be managing all complaints.  Two local investigations so far had been completed following the Standards Board for England (SBE) guidance, but a local procedure would draw together in one document both the SBE guidance and all relevant legislation.

At the request of the Standards Committee, the Deputy Monitoring Officer had written to the Chief Executive of the SBE, David Prince, and this letter and the response were included in the agenda.  Attention was drawn to Mr Prince’s comments that “proposals are currently being developed to transfer the responsibility for the initial filtering of allegations to standards committees”, which the Chairman clarified as referring to upcoming draft legislation and statutory instruments.  Members also considered Mr Prince’s statement that “all reports which conclude that there has been a breach of the code of conduct will therefore require a hearing…”, which seemed to curtail the authority of ESOs and which would have serious financial consequences for the District Council.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer undertook to respond to Mr Prince seeking clarification of his statement about proposals being developed and to express the Standards Committee’s surprise at the removal of the right of an ESO to determine that no action be taken.  It was agreed that a draft of her letter would first be circulated to Standards Committee members.

The Chairman explained that the move to increase the number of local investigations had arisen from the 2004 review of the investigatory process, through which the majority of Standards Committees and Monitoring Officers requested the ability to conduct local investigations, rather than a change in policy by the SBE made purely for financial reasons.  The Chairman had raised with the Chief Executive in October 2005 the likely financial implications and the Standards Committee would be submitting a Business Plan to determine a budget to cover the likely workload, but there was no guarantee that a budget could be established.

There was no immediate urgency to adopt a local investigations procedure, as the existing SBE guidance could continue to be followed.  Other than officer time already spent looking at a local procedure, there were no financial implications for deferring a decision until after the new legislation expected in early 2008.  However, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that the nationally-issued SBE guidance was easy to follow, but lacked local insight into the role of parish councils.  Councillor Riley proposed, seconded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

For ratification. 

The Chairman introduced the draft procedure for local investigations and noted that representations had been made by two Committee members, copies of which were available on the Council’s website and which would be circulated to all Committee members.  Rather than attempt to re-draft the procedure at the current meeting, the Committee felt that this procedure and the associated Procedure for Local Standards Hearings be adjourned to an extra-ordinary meeting.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer undertook to receive comments from Committee members before a set deadline, and would incorporate into a revised procedure all straightforward drafting issues then prepare a report on substantive issues of principle for discussion.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that the original procedures had been drafted by Peter Keith-Lucas, a partner with the Bevan Brittan firm of solicitors in London, and had been included as part of a resource package at a recent training exercise.  The procedures, once re-drafted by the Standards Committee, would be forwarded to the Constitution Review Working Party and then to full Council for incorporation into the Constitution.  There was no immediate need for the procedures to be ratified, as the Constitution already contained a procedure for local hearings and the Standards Board for England had written guidance on local investigations.

Councillor A Riley supported the proposal for an extra-ordinary meeting and asked that Committee members receive copies of the Statutory Instruments underlying the procedures.  He asked the Deputy Monitoring Officer seek clarification from the Standards Board for England why the procedure omitted the option for the Ethical Standard Officer to find evidence of a breach but take no further action.  He further queried the existence in legislation of a local filtering process allowing the investigator to acknowledge evidence of a breach but not to require a hearing in instances where it was unlikely sanctions would be imposed.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that the comment in the July 2006 Town and Parish Standard publication from the Standards Board for England was the first time the Ethical Standards Officer filtering process had been acknowledged in writing.

Mr D Kelleway proposed the establishment of a sub-committee to review the procedures with the Chairman and Monitoring Officer before they returned to full Committee, but it was felt that an extra-ordinary meeting would suffice.  The Democratic Services Officer undertook to circulate amongst Committee Members possible dates for the extra-ordinary meeting and Mr Kelleway asked that it be noted that the £210 annual co-optees’ allowance for parish members was insufficient to cover his loss of earnings to attend meetings unless he took unpaid leave from work.

The Standards Committee

Mr Kelleway reiterated his request that all agenda items have covering reports.