Dear Mrs McMillan

I need to respond with any further input to these items.

I have already sent a list of concerns on 7 August, to which you replied on 8 August.  I have some comments to your replies – see below.  I also made further comments on 13 August.

The reason for my concerns in this matter is that I believe that the purpose of the Standards Committee is to foster high standards of conduct at South Cambs but that aspects of the current Code of Conduct and in particular these proposed changes will operate in the opposite direction.  I simply don’t accept that we have to accept bad law because it is Statute, at least not without first registering our protest to the appropriate powers.  Otherwise, they cannot know to amend aspects of their diktats (which, after all, is exactly what Statutory Instruments are).

I have already raised the issue of ”Investigating Officer” because we need a discussion and agreement before we employ such a person.  This does, however, need to be looked at in the round.  When the Code of Conduct was brought in, it seemed like an easy, no-cost, solution to make an Authority’s Chief Legal Officer the Monitoring Officer.  Until it became so fashionable at South Cambs to make complaints against Members, this was an entirely satisfactory arrangement.  Currently, though, the MO aspects of the job appear to be threatening our ability to perform the CLO aspects (this is aggravated by the current absence of the MO). 

In a nutshell, if we really decide we need to appoint a new legal person then I think we should think carefully about separating the MO and CLO roles so that these two individuals can then get on with their separate jobs in an uncluttered way.

Below are my comments on your responses of 8 August:

Item 12

a)       OK

b)       If the procedure is considered flawed then even if we can’t change it we should still flag our reservations.

c)       I believe that this merits discussion.

d)       I take your point but the wording should be tightened to clarify.

e)       If this wording can be removed I believe it should be.

f)         OK, given your response to d).

g)       I suggest 30 days.

h)       I stand by my comments.  ESOs, in my experience, act as prosecutors, not as dispassionate seekers-after-truth. 

i)         As with so many aspects of the SBE, the publicly-stated situation can differ significantly from the reality.

j)         Typo apart, I wish this clause deleted.

k)       For the reasons given at our last meeting South Cambs cannot go along with faulty Statutory Instrument that trebles the number of hearings.

l)         See k).

m)     This was my mistake.  My comments applied to naming and shaming in principle.  This is part of the “school-marm” approach to maintaining high standards of behaviour and it will prove self-defeating if we implement it.

n)       I think my original point was confused.  But see k).

o)       Would like to see deleted.

p)       I take your point but in that case the wording needs to be clarified.

q)       As for p).

Item 13

a)       Unless this is required by the legislation it should be removed.

b)       Again, the wording is open to negative interpretation and needs clarifying.

c)       Needs discussion and agreement.

d)       Wording needs clarifying.

e)       To be agreed.

f)         I stand by my view that this document has been over-hastily drafted and would cause many problems in its present form.

g)       OK

h)       OK, given earlier comments.

i)         Needs discussion and agreement.

j)         OK, subject to wording improvements.

k)       Important.

l)         I can’t believe that this should be in as worded.

m)     I stand by my comments.  

n)       OK

o)       I did find the reference in one of the SIs.

p)       Even if they can’t be modified, this wording is poor and we should flag it.

q)       OK

r)        OK

If Form C is to be made public in advance of the hearing (which I still consider a disgrace) then this should clearly be stated on it.

 

Regards

Alex Riley