Agenda, decisions and minutes

None.

To note that, all parish and community councils and meetings in South Cambridgeshire having been invited to submit nominations for a representative to serve on the Standards Committee for the next four years, Stapleford Parish Council had nominated Mr Michael Farrar, who was returned unopposed and will serve a four-year term until 7 August 2013.

The Standards Committee congratulated Mr Farrar on his re-election. 

To authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2009 as a correct record.

The Chairman was authorised to sign the minutes of the meeting of 17 June 2009 as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

·                      Minute 8: “…member of the Trustee of the Recreation Ground…”

·                      Minute 18: “…agreed that this case be included…”

·                      Minute 19: “…just that he wanted wondered how it could be…”

The Chairman set out her aims for the Standards Committee in 2009/10, which she believed went straight to the heart of the committee’s purpose:

(i)                   To publicise the Standards Committee and its work: she wanted to raise awareness of the committee, and that Councillors worked very hard on behalf of the public and were held to high standards of conduct.  An article about the committee had already been published in the autumn edition of South Cambs magazine.

(ii)                 To reassure all staff that any concerns they raised about a member would be resolved promptly, and fairly to both the officer and the member(s) involved, without prejudice to the officer’s career or how he or she was treated by councillors in the future.

(iii)                To focus on parish councils, particularly through the Parish Liaison Working Group, as parish councillors did not have the same opportunities as district councillors for training and advice.

The Chairman encouraged members to raise with her any practical suggestions for furthering these aims.

The Standards Committee WAS MINDED to enter into joint arrangements with the Standards Committee of East Cambridgeshire District Council for the discharge of the hearings (determination) function.

The Standards Committee (Further Provisions) (England) Regulations 2009 made provisions for two or more local authorities to establish a joint standards committee to discharge all or some of its functions.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer had spoken to neighbouring authorities, several of which were interested in informal arrangements to share Monitoring Officer duties.  East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) had expressed an interest in formal arrangements for the discharge of the hearings (determination) function.  Members considered a report setting out the method through which a joint committee could be established.  If both authorities were minded to enter into joint arrangements, a further report and draft Terms of Reference would be produced for consideration at the 9 December 2009 meeting.

In response to questions, the Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that:

·                      Officers from both authorities felt that the hearings panel (determinations) stage offered the best opportunity for joint working.  A joint hearings panel would be comprised of members from the parent Standards Committees from both authorities and would be likely to have 10-12 members as a pool from which a three-member panel would be drawn in the event of a local hearing.  The membership of the two parent Standards Committees would remain unchanged and there would not be any requirement for an SCDC member to serve on the ECDC Standards Committee or vice versa;

·                      Unlike the statutory requirement for a parish council member to serve on a panel determining a parish council matter, there was no equivalent requirement for a district council member to serve when determining a district council matter;

·                      Appointments to a hearing panel would be made on a case-by-case basis, with the process set out clearly in the Terms of Reference, which would be subject to approval by the two District Councils.  The Terms of Reference could provide that only SCDC committee members serve on panels determining South Cambridgeshire matters unless there were conflicts of interest precluding the participation of SCDC members;

·                      As with the existing hearings process, the subject member would be informed of the proposed membership of the hearing panel and the Terms of Reference could include a requirement that a subject member be asked whether he / she preferred local or external members to serve;

·                      The Terms of Reference would include a section on joint training;

·                      The administrative side of the process (Monitoring Officer, Democratic Services Officer) would be conducted by the authority responsible for the subject member;

·                      A three-year joint working trial was suggested, followed by a review and a decision whether or not to continue.

The Committee was unable to foresee the public perception of joint working arrangements and whether they would be considered to be more fair or more bureaucratic.  Mr JG Williams suggested that hearings panels be comprised only of independent members to avoid the potential for district councillors’ conflicts of interest, but it was felt that the subject member, if a district councillor, was likely to object if the panel did not include at least one district councillor.

The Chairman agreed to discuss  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

The Standards Committee AGREED to grant dispensations until May 2011, the duration of the current Parish Council, to Foxton Parish Councillors Mr David Allars, Mr Geoffrey Barnes, Mr Steven Bentinck, Dr Colin Grindley, Mrs Rachael Macintyre, Dr David McKeown, Dr Nigel Oakley and Mr Peter Sutton, with the reminder that they are still to declare an interest in any matters concerning Foxton Recreation Ground and to declare that they have received a dispensation for that interest.

The members of Foxton Parish Council had applied for dispensations for matters relating to Foxton Recreation Ground Trust, a registered charity of which Foxton Parish Council was the sole Trustee.  The charity could exercise its power as Trustee only through the members of Foxton Parish Council.

The Standards Committee AGREED to grant until May 2011, the duration of the current Parish Council, dispensations for any matters concerning Foxton Recreation Ground to Foxton Parish Councillors Mr David Allars, Mr Geoffrey Barnes, Mr Steven Bentinck, Dr Colin Grindley, Mrs Rachael Macintyre, Dr David McKeown, Dr Nigel Oakley and Mr Peter Sutton, with the reminder that they were still to declare an interest in any matters concerning Foxton Recreation Ground and to declare that they have received a dispensation for that interest.

For decision on whether or not to submit an entry.  Details of the criteria are attached. 

The Standards Committee, with thirteen members in favour, three against and one abstaining, AGREED that an entry be submitted to the 2010 Local Government Chronicle (LGC) Awards: Standards and Ethics category.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that all local authorities had been invited to submit entries to the 2010 Local Government Chronicle (LGC) Awards, for which a Standards and Ethics category had been added in 2009.  The Committee would have to demonstrate the work it had done in the latter half of 2008/09 and the first half of 2009/10, most of which had already been summarised in the Annual Report to Council and the 2009/10 Key Performance Indicators.  In response to concerns expressed, the Deputy Monitoring Officer clarified that the award was for the work of the Standards Committee to raise its profile and increase public awareness of its role, not about the cases considered, and that the awards scheme was owned and run by the LGC and not Standards for England, although the latter was helping to promote the Standards and Ethics award.

The Standards Committee, with thirteen members in favour, AGREED that an entry be submitted to the 2010 Local Government Chronicle (LGC) Awards: Standards and Ethics category.

Councillor NN Cathcart, Mr JL House and Councillor A Riley voted against the proposal and Councillor Dr SEK van de Ven abstained.

For confirmation of KPIs held over from previous meeting. 

The Standards Committee, with two abstentions, AGREED the updated set of Key Performance Indicators for 2009/10.

The Committee received the updated Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for 2009/10.  The Chairman drew attention to KPI 13, which previously stated that the Committee should take responsibility for the Member-Officer Relations Protocol, but had been reworded to request that responsibility for it should be clarified.  The Committee requested that the Constitution Review Working Party determine which body should have overall responsibility for the protocol.  KPI 15, establishment of a local standards committee forum with neighbouring authorities, was deferred until after the October 2009 Annual Assembly of Standards Committees.

Members queried KPI 8, which referred to the Standards Committee’s role to receive applications and make directions in relation to politically restricted posts under the s3A Local Government and Housing Act 1989.  This power was passed to Standards Committees as part of the 2007 Code of Conduct, and effectively allowed the Committee to consider granting exemptions to senior District Council officers who were appointed to politically-restricted posts but were politically active, for example, as elected councillors outside South Cambridgeshire.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer would provide a full report to the next meeting.

It was noted that Ms GJ Butcher and the Deputy Monitoring Officer had been invited to speak at the 2009 Annual Assembly.

The Standards Committee AGREED the updated set of Key Performance Indicators for 2009/10.

Councillors NN Cathcart and A Riley abstained from voting on the proposal.

For discussion.

It was AGREED that the list of areas of concern be circulated to members by e-mail along with potential dates for the first Parish Liaison Working Group meeting.

The Standards Committee, at its meeting of 17 June 2009, had agreed to establish a Parish Liaison Working Group to look at ways to improve communication with, and training opportunities for, parish councillors and clerks.  All members had been invited to participate on the Working Group and Mr RF Bryant, Councillor Mrs SJO Doggett, Mr M Farrar, and Mr CF Tomsett had volunteered to serve.  Mr CF Tomsett had volunteered to be the Chairman.

The following areas of concern were suggested for the Working Group to consider and the Chairman explained that the first priority of the Working Group would be to look for practical ways to address issues, considering the wide range and diversity of parish councils in the district:

·                      Adherence to the Code of Conduct;

·                      Understanding of, and acting upon, correspondence received, not just noting that correspondence has arrived;

·                      Adherence to and understanding of financial regulations;

·                      Adoption of Standing Orders, although not mandatory, for the efficient and transparent running of meetings; and

·                      Making the public aware of what they could expect from their parish councils, particularly how meetings were conducted and where they could turn for advice.

It was AGREED that the list of areas of concern be circulated to members by e-mail along with potential dates for the first Parish Liaison Working Group meeting.

To note. 

The Committee NOTED Standards for England’s report on Public Perceptions of Ethics, particularly the low overall percentage of respondents who were aware of their local authority’s standards committee, which was an area the Committee had already taken steps to address. 

To note. 

The Committee NOTED the quarterly return statistics, which now covered the full municipal year 2008-09. 

At the Standards Committee Hearing Panel on 7 May 2009 the Panel made the following recommendation to the Council: “That the procedures and operating principles of the Chairman’s Delegation Meeting be reviewed within three months of the hearing, this review to include the consideration of provision of officer support from either Legal or Democratic Services, or both.  This should be achieved by the establishment by the Monitoring Officer of an officer working group, reporting to a task and finish group of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee and to the Standards Committee at its 16 September 2009 meeting.”

This recommendation was considered by the Monitoring Officer and the Chairman of Scrutiny and Overview Committee and it was decided that, as the Planning Committee was a regulatory committee which could decide its own procedures, the best route for review was for an officer working group, working with the Planning Portfolio Holder, to consider the matter and to make recommendations to Planning Committee itself. 

The Deputy Monitoring Officer, Fiona McMillan, Senior Lawyer Gary Duthie (who advises Planning Committee) and Development Control Manager David Rush formed an officer working group and have met three times since May to consider the current Chairman's Delegation Meeting process and options for review.  The Planning Portfolio Holder joined the group for the last two meetings.  The Planning Portfolio holder was asked to indicate a "preferred option" at his Portfolio Holder's meeting on 1 September and the review options report will go to full Planning Committee on 8 October.  The Committee's decision will be reported to the Standards Committee meeting in December 2009.

To note. 

The Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that there had been a large number of parish and district councillors at the Planning Portfolio Holder’s meeting on 1 September when the Chairman’s Delegation Meeting (ChDM) Protocol and Operation Principles were discussed, and a report would be presented to the Planning Committee on 7 October for determination.  Parish councils had sought originally to have speaking rights at ChDM, they were now asking only to be allowed to observe, to ensure that their local district councillor was reporting their views accurately.  It was acknowledged that the local district councillor might not agree with the views of the parish council, but could make his or her own representations as long as the parish council’s views were reported and a distinction was made between the parish council’s views and the member’s own views.

The Standards Committee’s view remained that adequate democratic services and legal support was required at all ChDM.

To note. 

The table was NOTED. 

The Parish Forum training events have been re-scheduled for autumn 2009 and will be advertised to the parish councils through the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Association of Local Councils (CPALC) and the Standards Committee Newsletter. 

Standards Committee members are asked to commit to attending at least one session.

To note.

Although parish council administration was outside the Standards Committee’s remit and was not a Code of Conduct issue, the Council often received Code of Conduct complaints about administrative matters and the Committee felt that there was a link between the operation of parish council meetings and public perception of parish councillors.  As the Local Government Ombudsman did not consider complaints made about parish council administration, these issues were unenforced.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that Council sought to provide advice and support where necessary, and, if made aware of concerns, would take steps to warn parish councils which were in breach of their statutory requirements, especially as improved administration could pre-empt complaints made under the Code of Conduct in the absence of any other avenue.

Members noted the Parish Council Meeting Checklist which the Standards Committee had issued after its June meeting, and that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Association of Local Councils was distributing a more detailed version later this month.  All Parish and District Council Committee members were urged to draw attention to these documents at their parish council meetings, to ensure that the documents had been received and their importance understood.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that the parish council forums had been re-scheduled for Wednesday 23 September, 10 am – 12 noon at the SCDC Offices, and Thursday 8 October, 7 – 9 pm at Sawston Village College.  The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Association of Local Councils (CPALC) had sent out the invitations and the response rate had been greatly improved.  The Democratic Services Officer was meeting with the County Executive Officer of CPALC to discuss opportunities for joint working, including the provision of web-based training for parish councillors and clerks, as suggested at the last Standards Committee meeting.

Standards for England was about to issue a new DVD on local assessment, and Standards Committee members were invited to stay for lunch after the 9 December meeting to watch it.

None received. 

None received.  It was AGREED that this item would be re-named Feedback from Parish Liaison Working Group. 

The Assessment Panel has referred one case for a local investigation.  There have not been any hearing panels nor cases referred to Ethical Standards Officers.

To note.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer reported that an investigation was underway, concerning a parish council matter, and a report would be made to the Hearings (Consideration) Panel in due course.

Attached for information are details of three recent decisions by the Adjudication Panel for England.

Members had received Standards for England’s latest Bulletin by e-mail as it had been published the day after the agenda was completed.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer summarised the headlines, noting that the revised Code of Conduct was now expected in “late autumn 2009”, and that there might be an additional Standards Committee meeting if one were required to consider it.

Attached is the information available to all members of staff on the Council’s intranet, accessible immediately upon opening an internet browser and clicking the link to “Whistleblowing”.  The link is displayed prominently under an area labelled “Items of Interest”.  All officers receive hard copies annually of the introduction and “Brief Guide to Whistleblowing”.

Also attached is the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s request to Monitoring Officers of neighbouring authorities about their whistleblowing policies, and the responses received.

The Committee received all whistle-blowing information available to officers and the Chairman explained that the internal auditor would provide an annual report to the Committee starting in December.  The majority view of the Committee was that it preferred to continue receiving quarterly reports in addition to the annual report.  The Deputy Monitoring Officer agreed to review the policy to ensure that it included guidance on what a whistle-blower should do if he or she had to continue working with the person about whom they had raised a complaint.

The next two quarterly meetings are:

·                      Wednesday 9 December 2009 at 10 am; and

·                      Wednesday 10 March 2010 at 10 am.

An extraordinary meeting may be scheduled in late autumn 2009 if the revised Code of Conduct has been published.  Members are advised to check their e-mail regularly for details.

The next meeting would be on Wednesday 9 December 2009 at 10 am unless an additional meeting were required to consider the revised Code of Conduct.