Agenda item

The report considers a request by a Member of Council for access to information under a procedure detailed in the Council’s Constitution at paragraph 13.3.7.

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report (Agenda item 8).

Cllr Rowles responded to the information within the report by stating that as a members there was an entitlement to the information under section 13.3.6 of the constitution. It was suggested that officers were questioning the integrity of Cllr Rowles by denying access to the confidential information. Cllr Rowles further suggested that the Monitoring Officer’s decision should be legitimately challenged and that bringing the matter to Governance and Ethics committee was the constitutional mechanism available to do so.

It was accepted that members did not have an unqualified right to information, however Cllr Rowles drew attention to section 13.3.6 of the constitution which stated that ‘Where Officers consider that information is of a confidential nature which should not be openly available to the public or press, this information will be supplied by Officers to Members on a private and confidential basis. Any information provided to Members on this basis will be treated as such and will not be circulated outside the Council’.

Cllr Rowles suggested that denying her access to such information questioned her integrity as a councillor.

Cllr Rowles referred to section 5.19 of the report which referred to her assertion of a ‘need to know’. Cllr Rowles commented that access to the details of the report would allow her to see how the case had concluded, and to consequently understand the position of the resident that she represented in relation to the council. It was suggested that the case in Kintbury had almost identical facts to the Lambourn matter in that; both individuals requested CIL exemption; both cases related to missing paperwork; the Council had failed to provide help or guidance to either; agents were involved in both cases and in neither case had a review felt to be appropriate. As such, Cllr Rowles argued that the approach to enforcement in the Lambourn case would have a direct relevance to that in Kintbury.

Cllr Rowles commented that the sheer volume of 53 emails included in the Monitoring Officer’s supporting evidence as a ‘sample’ was astounding.   

It was argued that the risk of the issue setting a precedent and then opening up information in relation to social care issues was a nonsense as there was no comparison between planning and social care cases.

Cllr Rowles quoted section 2.3.4 of the constitution which stated that councillors should ‘represent their communities and bring their views into the Council’s decision-making processes, thereby acting as the advocate of and for their communities’. It was suggested that Cllr Rowles was trying to fulfil her role as a councillor by challenging and holding the council to account on behalf of her ward resident.

Cllr Rowles finished by commenting that to close down her request was to close down the very fundamentals of democracy and the role that she had been elected to undertake. 

Visiting member Cllr J Cole commented that as a co-ward member he had a direct interest in the case and was pleased that his colleague was pursuing the matter. He commented that as a previous Chair of Governance and Ethics he was sad that the matter had needed to escalate to the stage of committee.

Cllr Cole suggested that councillors had three main roles; to represent the interests of their residents; to put forward and agree policies to protect those interests and to act as the equivalent of a multi-level supervisory board to ensure that all is done correctly and to provide challenge to officers when necessary. 

It was acknowledged that whilst councillors needed to work within the law, section 13.3.6 of the constitution made specific provision for circumstances when information should be provided on a confidential basis and that it was incumbent on councillors to request such information to ensure that all processes had been followed correctly.

It was suggested that the multiple references to adult social care and family service cases were not relevant to the report. It was argued that the specific cases involved financial implications and so were appropriate to investigate fully. 

Cllr Cole commented that it appeared clear that Cllr Rowles was acting as a councillor on behalf of her resident and not in any professional capacity. He further suggested that section 5.11 of the report appeared to be imputing that Cllr Rowles could not be trusted with information, which was unacceptable.

Cllr Cole suggested that the inclusion of 53 emails as evidence indicated just how obstructive officers of the council were being to a councillor trying to do her job. 

Cllr Abbs commented that he was shocked at how much member communication had been included within the report and suggested that members should start requesting that all future correspondence should remain confidential until such time that they agreed otherwise.

Under section 13.3.6 of the constitution it was argued that if a member requested information, explained the reason for the request, then by default they should expect to receive it, either in confidence or not. It was felt that the refusal to share the confidential information insinuated that the member would fail to respect that confidence.

Cllr Linden voiced concern at the implications arising from the case. He commented that he would be troubled if the information concerned had not been seen by a senior councillor.

Cllr Rowles further added that she had received advice that morning from the Head of Legal to abstain from voting on the matter due to a conflict of interest. Cllr Rowles commented that this was wholly unacceptable and a complete nonsense.

The Monitoring Officer stated that it was clear under the statutory regime that there were limitations to what information could be disclosed and that officers had not been obstructive or tried to close down members. It was argued that there was a clear distinction between briefing members and disclosing details of a report on which there was no basis to do so.

The Monitoring Officer stated that whilst there were similarities between the cases, there were also significant differences.

It was argued that inclusion of the 53 emails had been as a sample of the correspondence, that there had been further communications and that they demonstrated the assistance that officers had provided, and not any level of obstruction.

The Chair commented that whilst he could see both sides of the argument he failed to accept that officers had been deliberately obstructive and failed to see that any aspersions had been cast over Cllr Rowles’ level of trust. The Chair accepted that there were levels of information to which members should not be privy and was firmly in favour of the recommendation within the report.       

Cllr Abbs proposed a motion to reject the recommendation set out in the report and to refer the matter to Council for consideration. Cllr Rowles seconded the motion. The Committee voted by a majority to support the proposed motion.

RESOLVED:the Committee reject the officer recommendation and approve referral of the case to full Council.