Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for inability to attend the meeting (if any).

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillor David Holtby, John Bingham, Peter Iveson and Stephanie Steevenson.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of this Committee held on 08 February 2010.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2010 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

There were no declarations of interest received.

Purpose: To set out clear guidance on granting dispensations to town and parish councils where a number of prejudicial interests exist which would otherwise prevent a decision being taken.

David Holling introduced the report which set out clear guidance on granting dispensations to Parish Councillors allowing them to speak and vote at meetings where a number of prejudicial interests existed which would otherwise prevent a decision being taken. David reported on a previous application for a dispensation where some members of the Standards Committee were in favour and some were not and there did not appear to be a process in place to deal with that situation. Small Parish Councils with limited numbers had specific issues in this respect. 

Members of the Committee asked for clarification of an urgent case. David responded that it was usually when a Clerk to the Parish Council had forgotten to ask for a dispensation until the last minute and it would then be necessary for David to produce a short report or ring around members of the Standards Committee using a virtual meeting in order to come to a consensus of opinion as to whether the dispensation should be granted.

David clarified that a dispensation could be granted if more than half the Members entitled to vote at the meeting in question were prevented from doing so. The dispensation could be valid for just the meeting in question or as an ongoing dispensation for up to four years and it was therefore important that the Standards Committee was clear on the length of time a dispensation would be valid for when granting it.

James Rees referred to Section 4 of the report on considerations to be taken into account when granting a dispensation and asked the Committee if they were clear on what was being agreed. Councillor Julian Swift-Hook queried whether the proposals set out within the report had come about as a result of legislation or local determination. David Holling responded that it was a combination of the two. The process had initially been taken from the framework but had been written in a format that everyone would understand. In the new guidance it was necessary for each member to apply in writing for a dispensation rather than a group application. David confirmed that the process for applying for a dispensation would need to be circulated to all Parish Councils and consideration would be given to putting together some sort of proforma that could be used.

James Rees referred to paragraph 5.1(b) of the report which he felt obliged the Standards Committee to convene a meeting to consider each application except in the case of urgent items. David Holling confirmed that this was the case but in reality many of the applications would be of an urgent nature and therefore a virtual meeting of the Committee would be convened whereby David would contact as many members of the Committee as possible for their agreement or otherwise to the dispensation. It was queried whether a Dispensation Sub-Committee could be formed in order to give more flexibility. However, it was felt that this would not be a satisfactory solution as the views of all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

David Holling presented the Annual Standards Committee report to the Committee for consideration. It was West Berkshire Council’s Standards Committee’s ambition to “promote, educate and support Councillors (both District and Parish) in following the highest standards of conduct and to ensure that those standards were fully owned locally”.

It was queried how the Standards Committee promoted itself. David Holling confirmed that information was available on the website and high standards were promoted via this Committee. Training was provided on a regular basis to both District and Parish Councillors at the District/Parish Conference. The Chair of the Standards Committee also met with the Leader of the Council, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Executive. The Chairman has also met with other Councillors on an ad hoc basis as and when required.

RESOLVED that the Annual Report 2009-10 was agreed and would be distributed to all District, Town and Parish Councils for information.

David Holling introduced the discussion on policies and procedures of the Standards Committee which members of the Committee felt could be improved upon.

David stated that one particular issue which had arisen over the last year or so was whether the Subject Member should be advised or not when a complaint was received against them. James Rees noted that the Standards Committee had the ability to decide whether Subject Members would be advised or not and when the process was set up over a year or so ago it was felt that Subject Members should be advised. However, one recent case had caused upset for one Councillor as although the Subject Member could be advised that a complaint had been made against them they were not allowed to be given any details of the complaint or have any input until after the Assessment Sub-Committee meeting. Members of the Committee agreed that it was a difficult situation whether a Subject Member was notified of the complaint or not but felt that the inability to advise the Subject Member of the nature of the complaint went against the Freedom of Information Act and what happened in the Courts where the defendant would be aware of the charges against him/her. Some Members of the Committee felt that as the Subject Member had little input into the process until after the Assessment Sub-Committee then they should not be told.

David Holling stated that Officers tried to ensure that Assessment Sub-Committees were arranged in under 20 days from the receipt of the complaint. It was suggested that Assessment Sub-Committees should be arranged more frequently and after consideration it was agreed that meetings would be arranged for every 2nd and 4th Wednesday of the month in order that complaints could be dealt with as soon as possible and that the Subject Member would not be informed that a complaint had been received against them until after the Assessment Sub-Committee had made a decision as to whether there was a case to answer or not.

Discussion took place on requests for anonymity and whether it could be deleted from the form as it was felt that the Subject Member should have the right to take a civil case against a complainant if appropriate and it would therefore be necessary to know who the complainant was. David Holling advised that although the anonymity box was ticked there was no guarantee that the complaint would remain confidential. It was up to the Assessment Sub-Committee to decide whether it was appropriate for a complaint/complainant to remain confidential. The main reason for anonymity was if a junior member of staff wanted to make a complaint against a Member. (Note: Please note that the Standards Committee had previously agreed a Policy For Dealing With Complainant Requests for Confidentiality)

David Holling also referred to a recent Hearing Panel where one of the sanctions imposed was that all members of the Town Council should undergo Code of Conduct and Standing Orders training. However, one  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

David Holling reported on a recent letter which had been received from Dr. Robert Chilton, Chair of Standards for England in respect of the Government’s proposals to abolish the Standards Board regime. There were currently no clear details of the scope or implications of this proposal and until such time as the relevant legislation was passed then the statutory framework would remain in operation.

David advised that a draft Bill was likely to be considered by the Government in the Autumn.

James Rees reiterated the uncertainty for Standards for England and also for the Standards Committee of West Berkshire Council. James reported that a lot of good work had been undertaken by the Committee and a transparent and fair process had been put in place which it was hoped would continue. Councillor Julian Swift-Hook felt that it would be down to each individual authority whose localised powers would be increased. However, it was important that the Council did not go back to the system that was in place previously. Any system in place needed to be robust and clear. There were a number of anomalies which should be addressed but he felt that on the whole the system did not need to be changed substantially. Mike Wall agreed with Councillor Swift-Hook and suggested that West Berkshire could buy-in with other local authorities and undertake investigations on each other’s behalf.

Councillor Swift-Hook felt that the Independent Members on the Standards Committee provided the transparency for the members of the public and Elected Members and he thanked those members for their input.