Agenda and minutes

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any personal and/or prejudicial interests in any item on the agenda

Councillor Michael Parsons declared a person interest in agenda item 3 (Public Speaking Time/Open Session) on the grounds that he was acquainted with Mrs Charlotte Peters Rock, who was in attendance at the meeting and who was to address the Committee in accordance with Public Question Time Rules.      

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35 a total period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the Committee on any matter relevant to the work of the Committee.

Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers.

Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given.  It is not required to give notice of the intention to make use of public speaking provision, however, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours notice is encouraged.

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos. 11 and 35, a total period of 10 minutes was allocated for members of the public to address the Committee on any matters relevant to its work.  

Mrs C Peters Rock was in attendance and, as part of her address; posed two questions to the Committee:-

1)         What could the Committee do about a decision to appoint a former Portfolio Holder for Health and Well-being onto the Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Committee, whose role would be to scrutinise matters previously dealt with by the Cabinet; and

2)         What influence could the Committee have over encouraging Members to acknowledge their mistakes by their own volition without the need for a member of the public to submit a complaint?

Mrs Peters Rock also drew the Committee’s attention to the joint working arrangements for social care with Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC) stating that she hoped that Cheshire East would work with CWAC to ensure public confidence in the process.               

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2012.   

RESOLVED: 

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2012 be approved as a correct record.    

The Standards provisions in relation to the Localism Act 2011 are due to be brought in to force with effect from 01 July 2012, at which time the nationally prescribed Model Code of Conduct for Members will be abolished. 

Cheshire East Council and all Town and Parish Councils within the Borough must adopt a new Code of Conduct which sets out the conduct expected of Members when acting in their capacity as an elected Member.  The report of the Borough Solicitor contains a draft Code (Appendix 4) which, it is hoped will be adopted across the Cheshire Authorities to include Town and Parish Councils and the Fire Authority.  

Members are asked to approve and recommend the Code of Conduct to Council for adoption.  

At the previous meeting of the Issues and Ideas Working Group held on 14 May 2012, Members considered two draft Codes of Conduct produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Local Government Association (LGA). In addition, on 17 May 2012 the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) had issued a template code for Parish Councils, a copy of which was provided for Members’ information.   

To ensure consistency across Cheshire, and in line with preferences expressed by Members at the last meeting, a draft Code of Conduct based on the DCLG illustrative text had been developed and adapted to include behaviours Members were expected to uphold (that were part of the Model Code) but which had not been explicitly defined in the illustrative text e.g. maintaining confidentiality and respect for others.  Equally, the requirement not to bring a Member’s office into disrepute had not been included as it was considered that this had, in the past, been used as a way of reflecting a complainant’s wider dissatisfaction with an issue rather than address alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.   

The Borough Solicitor drew Members attention to a number of changes from the Model Code not present in the draft, most noticeably in respect of declaration of interests.  It was reported that the Regulations in respect of disclosable pecuniary interests had now been published, which would replace the need to declare personal and prejudicial interests.  Although the Regulations prescribed these interests, it did not stipulate that Councillors should withdraw from the meeting room whilst the matter was debated/voted upon and it was suggested that the Committee may wish to recommend to Constitution Committee/Council that this requirement be included in the Council’s Procedure Rules. 

Opposing views were expressed about whether Members should withdraw from the meeting when the item was first called or when the vote was taken.  Having considered the arguments put forward, it was recommended that a requirement to withdraw from the meeting should be at the point an item was called.

The debate then turned to issues relating to confidentiality, bullying and respect.  It was suggested that, due to the need to maintain confidentiality, it was not always possible for Members to be open at all time and a minor change to the wording of paragraph 5(a) Confidentiality, changing ‘as’ to ‘where’ possible would be appropriate.  A request was also made for explanatory notes to be included in the Code which defined these three behaviours; the Monitoring Officer suggesting that the definitions drawn up by Standards for England in respect of confidentiality and bullying (with the addition of the phrase ‘cyber bullying’ to cover abuse of electronic communications) could be added for clarity.  A further alteration, changing the word ‘respect’ to ‘courtesy’ would, Members felt, be self explanatory and negate the need for further addendums to the Code.  

RESOLVED:

That -   

a)     Subject to a minor alteration to the wording of paragraph 5(a), changing ‘as’ to ‘where’, the substitution of ‘courtesy’ for ‘respect’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The report of the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer invites the Committee to i) approve and recommend to Council the adoption of a new procedure for the investigation of complaints under the Council’s new Code of Conduct as required by the Localism Act 2011; and ii) recommend to Constitution Committee additional Terms of Reference for the Audit and Governance Committee for adoption by Council on 19 July 2012.                 

Principal authorities would, under the Localism Act, be responsible for investigating complaints that a member of the Borough Council or a Town/Parish Councillor in their area had breached their Code of Conduct.  This would require the authority to have in place a procedure for dealing with complaints. 

As a result of discussions by both the Committee and the Issues and Ideas Working Group, it has been agreed that responsibility for standards matters should transfer to the Audit and Governance Committee, which Council had approved on 16 May 2012 i.e. 

That the Audit and Governance Committee establish, on an ad-hoc basis, a Sub-Committee with delegated powers to deal with standards issues, with effect from the next meeting of the Council in July 2012

The Terms of Reference for the Committee, now submitted, suggested the formation of three sub-committees to deal with complaints; an Initial Assessment Panel to determine the validity of the complaint against agreed criteria, a Local Resolution Panel to determine/resolve minor breaches of the Code and a Hearings Sub-Committee to consider reports from an Investigative Officer should an external investigation been deemed necessary.  A draft procedure together with an explanatory flowchart and the assessment criteria to be followed were presented to Members by the Borough Solicitor. 

In general, the proposals found favour with the Committee; however the following matters were debated:

i)              Notification of complaint:  Members considered that the Subject Member, against whom the complaint had been made, should be notified of the fact and provided with a copy of the complaint form BUT that s/he should be directed not to make contact with the Complainant until such time as the complaint process had been concluded. 

ii)            It was felt that permitting only one witness to attend a hearing was too restricted and whilst the procedure should be managed, Subject Members should be permitted to bring no more than 3 witnesses plus a supporter if required.

iii)          The present procedure did not allow for the right of review by the Complainant or Subject Member following the making of a decision.  Contrasting opinions were expressed as to whether this option should be made available; the Committee deciding on balance that, as the new process was designed to be more stream-lined than at present, it should not be included.    

iv)          Where no evidence of failure to comply with the Code was found, it was requested that the Monitoring Officer maintain a record of complaints received so as to identify vexatious complainants at an early stage.

v)            For consistency, it was agreed that a decision notice should be published following a meeting of the Local Resolution Panel.                

RESOLVED:

That –

a)           Subject to the inclusion of the amendments listed above, the procedure relating to the investigation of complaints under the new Code of Conduct at Appendix 1 of the report together with the criteria used to evaluate complaints set out in appendix 3 be recommended for adoption by the Council on 19 July 2012; and

b)           Constitution Committee, at its meeting on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider an application for dispensation from seven Members of Rostherne Parish Council. 

The Committee was invited to determine an application submitted by seven Members of Rostherne Parish Council for a dispensation which, if granted, would enable them to take part in debates and vote upon matters relating to the Tatton Estate, of which they were all tenants.  

In accordance with the Code of Conduct and in the absence of any dispensation, Parish Councillors would be required to declare a personal and prejudicial/pecuniary interest in any application/issue before the Parish Council, which would render the Council inquorate, unable to perform its role as a statutory consultee to the planning applications and would prevent the Parish Council from representing the views of its residents.

It was reported that the Parish Council had last applied for a dispensation in 2009, which was granted by the Committee at its meeting on 21 September; remaining in force ‘until the next elections’ which had taken place in May 2011.  As no further request had been received or granted prior to the expiry date, no dispensation was currently in force.        

A copy of the Standards for England Dispensation guidance was attached to the report for information.  Members noted that the applicants had no right of appeal against the decision of the Committee and that, if members were minded to support the application, a reasonable time limit should be applied. 

RESOLVED: That

i) a dispensation be granted to the members of Rostherne Parish Council named in the report i.e.

Edward Ernest Wakefield    Thelma Horobin                     Julie Owen

Edward Blockley                   Dominic M Fenton                Akhim Eugene Fahey

Joseph Gate 

those Members to be permitted to speak and vote thereon on matters concerning the Tatton Estate; and i) the dispensation to remain in force until the next parish elections due to take place on 7 May 2015.                 

As this was the last meeting of the Standards Committee, the Chairman paid tribute to work of the Committee and its Members, making particular reference to the contribution of the Independent non-elected members and Parish Representatives whose roles were coming to an end.  Cllr Hammond reciprocated the Committee’s thanks to the Chairman who was also standing down.