Agenda item

Verbal update by the Monitoring Officer / Deputy Monitoring Officer.

The Chairman read the following statement: “In the light of recent comments by elected members in the press, and in e-mails circulated to elected members, officers and others in this authority, I feel that it is important that clarification be given in relation to the Members Code of Conduct, particularly those elements of the statutory framework which deal with ‘Personal Interests’; ‘Prejudicial Interests’, ‘Pre-Determination’ and ‘Bias’.

“Part of the role of the Standards Committee is to actively promote and maintain the highest standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the authority, and, to monitor and advise the Council of the operation of the Members Code. Implicit in this obligation is the requirement placed upon us, as a Committee, to ensure that errors of interpretation are promptly corrected. References to ‘gagging orders’ and the like, which have no basis in fact or practice, are particularly unhelpful and present a distorted and inaccurate picture to colleagues and local people.

“At my request, the Monitoring Officer has prepared a note which sets out the legal position, a copy of which has been given to all committee colleagues. It will also form part of the Minutes of this meeting. I would urge all elected members, and others, to read it. I draw particular attention to the final paragraph in which the Monitoring Officer confirms that he is always willing to provide advice and assistance to Members and Officers on issues related to interpretation of the Code, should such individuals be unsure of the extent to which the statutory framework applies to them.”

Copies of the statement and the Monitoring Officer’s note were circulated and published in the 9 November 2006 SCDC Councillors’ Weekly Bulletin.  The Monitoring Officer explained that the legal team found they often had to advise on the same issues and, while he acknowledged that some members did not like the Code of Conduct and found it restrictive, he asked that it be understood that he was bound by statutory requirements as Monitoring Officer to give specific advice and to take specific actions.  He could advise on the Code of Conduct, but it was up to members to decide how to act upon that advice.  Members who breached their obligations under the Code of Conduct, to which they agreed upon election, risked bringing additional difficulties to the entire Council, for example, if a significant piece of work were to be set aside by the courts because action by an elected member had been considered to be in breach of the Code and thereby maladministration.

The Monitoring Officer clarified that rules of pre-determination and bias were not statutory but created by judges; he cautioned that courts were taking action of “anxious scrutiny” and were quick to intervene where they feel there could be implications of pre-determination and bias.  He encouraged members to contact him if they wanted further details of the cases summarised in his note.

The Standards Committee NOTED the statement of the Chairman and the note of the Monitoring Officer.