Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED – that Councillor B Deering be appointed Chairman for this meeting of the Standards Sub-Committee.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 March 2015.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the meeting of the Standards Sub-Committee held on 30 March 2015 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To move that under Section 100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of items 8 - 14 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 7C of Part I of Schedule 12A of the said Act:

The deliberations of a Standards Committee….established under the provisions of Part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 in reaching any finding on a matter referred under the provisions of Section 60(2) or (3), 64(2), 70(4) or (5) or 71(2) of that Act.

It is for the Sub-Committee to determine whether or not these items should be considered in public and the report made available for public information.  Until a decision is taken, please regard the reports as confidential. 

The Sub-Committee considered whether or not to pass a resolution to exclude the press and public form the meeting during the discussion of the items recorded at Minutes 4 to 10 below on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in provisions of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Sub-Committee also considered whether or not to make the associated reports publically available.

The Sub-Committee determined to exclude the press and public from the meeting during the discussion of the matters at Minutes 4 to 10 below and not to make the associated the reports publically available.

           RESOLVED – that (A) under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the business recorded at Minutes 4 to 10 below on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the said act, and

           (B)      the reports associated with the business recorded in Minutes 4 to 10 below, be not made public by virtue of paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

(Note: Councillors Alder, Andrews and McNeece left the Chamber prior to consideration of the matters recorded at Minutes 4 to 10 below.)

The Sub-Committee considered a complaint against (former) Councillor M Alexander alleging that he had breached the Authority’s Code of Conduct.

The Sub-Committee noted the detail of the complaint and the evidence submitted by the complainant to support their allegation.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that, having consulted the Independent Person, he did not consider the complaint could be resolved informally.

The Monitoring Officer invited the Sub-Committee to consider the complaint against the (published) assessment criteria of the Authority’s Complaints Procedure.

The Monitoring Officer and Acting Chief Executive left the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee came to a determination on the complaint.

The Sub-Committee, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, agreed that no further action be taken as it related to someone who was no longer a member of the Authority and reasons for the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct were not sufficiently made clear.

           RESOLVED – that, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, no further action be taken as it related to someone
(M Alexander) who was no longer a member of the Authority and reasons for the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct were not sufficiently made clear.

The Sub-Committee considered a complaint against Councillor D Andrews alleging that he had breached the Authority’s Code of Conduct.

The Sub-Committee noted the detail of the complaint and the evidence submitted by the complainant to support their allegation.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that, having consulted the Independent Person, he did not consider the complaint could be resolved informally.

The Monitoring Officer invited the Sub-Committee to consider the complaint against the (published) assessment criteria of the Authority’s Complaints Procedure.

The Monitoring Officer and Acting Chief Executive left the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee came to a determination on the complaint.

The Sub-Committee, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, agreed that no further action be taken as it was not considered sufficiently serious to warrant investigation, particularly as any comments made at a meeting on 4 June 2014 were invited by the Chairman and were not material to the decision referred to by the complainant.

           RESOLVED – that, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, no further action be taken as it was not considered sufficiently serious to warrant investigation, particularly as any comments made at a meeting on 4 June 2014 were invited by the Chairman and were not material to the decision referred to by the complainant.

The Sub-Committee considered a complaint against (former) Councillor M Carver alleging that he had breached the Authority’s Code of Conduct.

The Sub-Committee noted the detail of the complaint and the evidence submitted by the complainant to support their allegation.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that, having consulted the Independent Person, he did not consider the complaint could be resolved informally.

The Monitoring Officer invited the Sub-Committee to consider the complaint against the (published) assessment criteria of the Authority’s Complaints Procedure.

The Monitoring Officer and Acting Chief Executive left the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee came to a determination on the complaint.

The Sub-Committee, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, agreed that no further action be taken as it related to someone who was no longer a member of the Authority and the grounds of the alleged breach of the Code had not been established.

           RESOLVED – that, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, no further action be taken as it related to someone (M Carver) who was no longer a member of the Authority and the grounds of the alleged breach of the Code had not been established.

The Sub-Committee considered a complaint against Councillor K Crofton alleging that he had breached the Authority’s Code of Conduct.

The Sub-Committee noted the detail of the complaint and the evidence submitted by the complainant to support their allegation.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that, having consulted the Independent Person, he did not consider the complaint could be resolved informally.

The Monitoring Officer invited the Sub-Committee to consider the complaint against the (published) assessment criteria of the Authority’s Complaints Procedure.

The Monitoring Officer and Acting Chief Executive left the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee came to a determination on the complaint.

The Sub-Committee agreed that consideration of the complaint be deferred to allow the Monitoring Officer to invite the complainant to particularise the element of the allegation now detailed as soon as possible.

RESOLVED – that, consideration of the complaint be deferred to allow the Monitoring Officer to invite the complainant to particularise the element of the allegation now detailed as soon as possible.

The Sub-Committee considered a complaint against Councillor J Jones alleging that he had breached the Authority’s Code of Conduct.

The Sub-Committee noted the detail of the complaint and the evidence submitted by the complainant to support their allegation.

The Monitoring Officer invited the Sub-Committee to consider the complaint against the (published) assessment criteria of the Authority’s Complaints Procedure.

The Monitoring Officer and Acting Chief Executive left the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee came to a determination on the complaint.

The Sub-Committee, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria and the approved process for dealing with complaints, agreed to request the Monitoring Officer to secure an informal resolution on the basis now detailed.

           RESOLVED – that, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria and the approved process for dealing with complaints, the Monitoring Officer be requested to secure an informal resolution on the basis now detailed.

The Sub-Committee considered a complaint against Councillor P Moore alleging that she had breached the Authority’s Code of Conduct.

The Sub-Committee noted the detail of the complaint and the evidence submitted by the complainant to support their allegation.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that, having consulted the Independent Person, he did not consider the complaint could be resolved informally.

The Monitoring Officer invited the Sub-Committee to consider the complaint against the (published) assessment criteria of the Authority’s Complaints Procedure.

The Monitoring Officer and Acting Chief Executive left the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee came to a determination on the complaint.

The Sub-Committee, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, agreed that no further action be taken as it was not considered sufficiently serious to warrant investigation.

RESOLVED – that, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria, no further action be taken as it was not considered sufficiently serious to warrant investigation.

The Sub-Committee considered a complaint against (former) Councillor M Newman alleging that he had breached the Authority’s Code of Conduct.

The Sub-Committee noted the detail of the complaint and the evidence submitted by the complainant to support their allegation.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that, having consulted the Independent Person, he did not consider the complaint could be resolved informally.

The Monitoring Officer invited the Sub-Committee to consider the complaint against the (published) assessment criteria of the Authority’s Complaints Procedure.

The Monitoring Officer and Acting Chief Executive left the Chamber whilst the Sub-Committee came to a determination on the complaint.

The Sub-Committee, after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria and the approved process for dealing with complaints agreed that no further action be taken as it related to someone who was no longer a member of the Authority.

The Sub-Committee further agreed that the Monitoring Officer be requested to write to the former member on the basis now detailed.

RESOLVED – that (A) after careful consideration of the complaint in consultation with the Independent Person and taking into account the Council’s assessment criteria and the approved process for dealing with complaints, no further action be taken as it related to someone (M Newman) who was no longer a member of the Authority, and

(B)   the Monitoring Officer be requested to write to the former member on the basis now detailed.