Agenda item

Member Code of Conduct Procedures

To consider a report relating to Member Code of Conduct procedures.

Minutes:

The Committee considered the Code of Conduct proposed amendment report which was set out in agenda pages 13-16.

 

The Chairman invited Members to comment on the proposals one at a time.

 

1.     Publishing the Member’s name after a formal investigation finds a breech has occurred

 

Recommendation:  That the sentence at para. 9.1.14.2, which states that a subject Member’s name will not be disclosed, be amended as follows:

Where there has been a determination by the Monitoring Officer to resolve the matter informally, the Subject Member’s name will be disclosed in accordance with Para. 9.1.16.3, except that a formal decision notice will be prepared in consultation with the Chairman of the Standards Committee.  

 

Councillor Helliar-Symons believed that ‘naming and shaming’ was not conducive to reconciliation and therefore she was not in favour of this proposal.

 

Councillor Rowland stated that the public had little confidence in politicians globally and locally, therefore in her opinion revealing names would help rebuild confidence in public life.  She stated that if someone had done something wrong, he or she should be reprimanded, in her view this process was not about reconciliation, it was about raising standards.

 

Mary Severin, Borough Solicitor explained that there was an initial decision making process at the very beginning when a complaint was first received where four possible options were considered:

·           Take no action;

·           Resolve the matter informally;

·           Action formally or

·           Formal investigation

 

Councillor Clark was in agreement with Councillor Helliar-Symons and believed that not revealing names would prevent pettiness.

 

The proposal was put to the vote and the majority agreed not to go ahead with option 1.

 

2.     Potential guidelines to support the Monitoring Officer’s initial decision

 

Recommendation:  That the guidance for the Monitoring Officer’s initial decision, as worded in the report, be added to Para. 9.1.13.4 of the Constitution.

 

Councillor Helliar-Symons was in favour of this proposal as it was now less ambiguous and clearer.

 

Councillor Rowland asked that the ‘Public Interest’ criterion be re-worded to make it clearer.  It was also suggested not to finish with a question mark.

 

The proposal was put to the vote and the majority agreed to go ahead with option 2.

 

3.     Preventing a Member complaining about another Member

 

Recommendation:  That the Code of Conduct complaints process should be open to everyone, including Members.

 

Councillor Clark felt uncomfortable with the proposal that Members be prevented from complaining about another Member.  She felt this would compromise transparency.

 

Councillor Helliar-Symons believed this issue was covered by proposal 2.  She also pointed out that no other Council had this rule and that not all complaints were of political nature.

 

The proposal was put to the vote and the majority agreed with the recommendation of keeping the process open to everyone, including Members.

 

The Chairman put forward a case scenario to test the system.  He asked what would happen if someone complained that a Councillor “shouted at me on the phone.”

 

Andrew explained that he would try to establish the facts and find out if this was substantiated by any witnesses.  He would look for patterns, or if this was a one off occurrence.  Initially he would seek to resolve it by asking the Councillor to apologize.  Depending on the circumstances a different approach may be needed.

 

RESOLVED That the recommendations agreed above be submitted to the Constitution Review Working Group for approval.

Supporting documents: