BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL STANDARDS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM 1, COUNCIL OFFICES, CORKS LANE, HADLEIGH ON FRIDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2010
Quick Links
16 - Declaration of Interests
17 - Minutes
18 - Petitions
19 - Questions from Members
20 - Abolition of Standards for England and the Future of Standards
21 - Shared Monitoring Officer Arrangements
22 - Policies for Dealing with Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour and Unreasonably Persistent Complaints
23 - Application for Dispensation, Great Waldingfield Parish Councillors
24 - Members' Code of Conduct Case Reports
25 - Quarterly Monitoring Report
26 - Observation of Proceedings at Committee Meetings
27 - Work Plan
|
PRESENT: |
Members |
Co-opted Members |
|
|
Mr P Jones
|
Miss P F Cook
Mr P J Down
Mr R L Feltwell
Mr A George
Mrs T Kavvadias
Mr J G Watson
|
Mrs S P Clarke, Mr R E Kemp and Mr A F D W Osborne were unable to attend.
There were no declarations of interest.
RESOLVED
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2010 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.
None received.
None received.
The Monitoring Officer submitted a report (Paper K114) concerning announcements made by the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that Standards for England and the entire “standards régime” would be abolished. The details remained unclear at this stage but the stated intention was to abolish a centrally prescribed code of conduct, to make failure to register or declare an interest a criminal offence and to give the Local Government Ombudsman new powers to investigate “incompetence”.
A report by the Monitoring Officer (Paper K115) on the content of the latest Standards for England’s “Bulletin” publication was also considered. Standards for England had indicated that it would be scaling down its operations and, although the criteria for its acceptance of complaints would remain unchanged, it would also now have regard to the resources available to it and the importance of the case in arriving at a decision about whether to accept the referral of a complaint. It would also no longer require the submission of an Annual Report. It was stated in the publication that, in view of the current uncertainties, it was prudent for standards committees, instead of carrying out full recruitment procedures, to consider reappointing existing independent members, provided their terms had not already expired and the correct procedures had been followed when they were first appointed.
The Monitoring Officer reported that Mid Suffolk District Council’s Standards Committee had considered these matters and had suggested that a letter be sent to the Secretary of State to express both its concern and its view, since standards of behaviour had improved with the introduction of the current “standards régime,” that, even if Standards for England were abolished, standards committees ought to be empowered to operate their own ethical standards régimes.
RESOLVED
(1) That the information in Papers K114 and K115 and in Standards for England “Bulletin 48” be noted.
(2) That a letter be sent to the Secretary of State on behalf of the Committee setting out its own concerns about the likely detrimental effects on general conduct that the abolition of the ethical standards framework will have, the precise wording of the letter to be agreed by the Monitoring Officer following consultation with the Chairman.
(3) That the issues be brought to the attention of Parish and Town Councils in the administrative area covered by Babergh District Council.
(4) That the Monitoring Officer be instructed to update the Committee as further information becomes available.
The Monitoring Officer reported on the shared arrangements with Mid Suffolk District Council that were now in force. Following the integration of the legal staff of the two authorities, Mrs K Saward had been appointed Monitoring Officer for both authorities, whilst the three Deputy Monitoring Officers previously appointed separately by the two authorities had been appointed Deputies for both Councils. The Monitoring Officer indicated it had been anticipated that there might be benefits in merging the two authorities’ standards committees in due course but it was inappropriate at this time given the uncertainty surrounding future roles.
RESOLVED
That the position be noted.
The Committee considered a report by the Monitoring Officer (Paper K116) which included suggested policies for dealing with unreasonable behaviour by complainants and for dealing with complainants who were unreasonably persistent and as a result of which placed excessive demands on the use of resources. Although there were extremely few such cases and almost all complaints were satisfactorily resolved, in the rare instances when complainants did exhibit unreasonable behaviour or were unreasonably persistent, the situations were likely to be emotionally charged and potentially distressing for everyone involved. Having policies to deal with such situations was intended to ensure that the appropriate level of resources was applied in each case so as not adversely to affect the provision of services to others and to remove any danger that a complainant might be treated less favourably because of the nature of their dealings with the Council. Overall, it was important that complainants were treated fairly and consistently and that any restrictions that might be applied to them in their dealings with the Council were proportionate.
The draft policies were appended to the Monitoring Officer’s report and the Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that they would be accompanied by guidance to employees as to how they should operate. Such guidance would provide examples of the types of behaviour that might cause the policy to be invoked and include definitions of when the policy should be engaged.
In accordance with the advice of the Local Government Ombudsman Service, upon whose policy the draft proposals were based, the guidance would need to describe the steps to be followed in order for the Council to be satisfied that it had treated both the complaint and the complainant properly, including being satisfied as to the treatment of the complainant, that the decision was correct and, for example, that no new information had been provided. Examples of action that could be appropriate before designating a person as “unreasonably persistent” or their behaviour as “unreasonable” would also be included. That could entail offering a meeting with a senior officer, possibly with an advocate present, or designating one person to co-ordinate communications.
It was explained that the types of restrictions envisaged under the policy could include placing time limits on telephone calls or personal contacts, or restricting calls in number and to specified times or days of the week. In some instances, it might be appropriate for meetings to be conducted only with a witness present. In any case, if the policy were to be applied, it was suggested that the decision should be taken at the level of Director or above and that the person should be informed and advised of the reasons, the consequences and how they might appeal the decision. It was suggested that appeals should be considered by another member of Management Team. Designations should also be time-limited and it was suggested that they be reviewed after 6 months.
RECOMMENDED TO STRATEGY COMMITTEE
That the policies for dealing with unreasonable behaviour by complainants and with unreasonably persistent complainants set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 to Paper K116 be adopted, together with the suggested guidance.
A report (Paper K117) by the Monitoring Officer was considered on an application by four members of Great Waldingfield Parish Council to allow them to participate and vote on items concerning expenditure on the village hall notwithstanding their membership of the Village Hall Management Committee, which was a registered charity. It was explained in the report that the Parish Council comprised 8 members but was currently operating with 7 following the occurrence of a vacancy, whilst a dispensation could only be granted where the business of the Parish Council would be impeded because more than half its members were otherwise prohibited from voting. Under the circumstances it was appropriate, if it were decided to grant the application, for the dispensations to be granted only for so long as the Parish Council’s membership remained short of its full complement.
RESOLVED
(1) That dispensations be granted to Councillors Steele, Misselbrook, Backhouse and Sowman to allow those Members to participate and vote on items affecting or relating to the financial interests of Great Waldingfield Village Hall and its Management Committee for so long as the membership of the Parish Council remains fewer than 8.
(2) That the dispensations referred to in (1) above remain in force for up to four years.
The Monitoring Officer presented her report (Paper K118) on the details of recent cases decided by the First-Tier Tribunal (Local Government Standards in England) arising out of the investigation of alleged breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct.
RESOLVED
That the information contained in Paper K118 be noted.
The Deputy Monitoring Officer submitted a report (Paper K119) containing details of interests and gifts declared by Members and Officers during the period from July to September 2010 and also on the assessment of complaints received about councillors’ conduct during that period.
RESOLVED
That the information in Paper K119 be noted.
The co-opted Members of the Committee reported on their attendance at recent Committee and Council meetings. They had observed Members’ views being expressed in a robust way on occasions but conduct was considered to have been generally acceptable, although a remark passed during a meeting of the Development Committee on 29 September could potentially have caused offence.
The Committee discussed the current arrangements under which it had previously been agreed that co-opted members would attend meetings in accordance with a rota. The Committee considered whether it was appropriate to have someone in attendance at every meeting in future and it was reported that there had been occasions when more than one co-opted member had been in attendance, which not only called into question the value of having a rota but also, as the second member had not been expected, meant that the relevant Chairman had not introduced them at the commencement of the meeting. The Committee proceeded to consider whether it was desirable to have more than one member in attendance at any meeting and reference was also made to the fact that some Panel and Task Group meetings on the full schedule of meetings circulated to members of the Committee were not public meetings and not therefore available for attendance in any case.
RESOLVED
(1) That the rota for attendance at meetings for the remainder of 2010 include only the following meetings and the attendees indicated –
Meeting Attendee
Council, 19 October Mr A George
Development, 27 October Mr P Down
Strategy, 4 November Mrs T Kavvadias
Development, 24 November Mrs T Kavvadias
Council, 13 December Mr R Feltwell
Development, 22 December Mr J G Watson
(2) That the Committee’s representative be notified in advance to the Chairman of the meeting concerned and that it be indicated that, should any other co-opted member of this Committee be in attendance, they will be attending solely as a member of a public.
The Committee received a report from the Monitoring Officer (Paper K120) setting out the Committee’s Work Plan for 2010/11.
RESOLVED
That the Work Plan set out in Paper K120 be noted.
Note: The meeting was adjourned for refreshments between 10.40 a.m. and 11.00 a.m.
The business of the meeting was concluded at 12.33 p.m.
Chairman
|