Issue - meetings
MINUTES
Meeting: 16/04/2013 - Standards Advisory Committee (Item 3)
To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Standards Advisory Committee held on 17th October 2012.
Minutes:
Mr Barry O’Connor proposed for the consideration of SAC members, that the minutes be amended to correct the following typographical error: Page 2, Agenda item 4.1 “Anti Fraud Update 2012”, penultimate bullet, line 3 “head” should read “had”.
Matter Arising
Councillor Peter Golds, referencing Page 5, Agenda item 4.5 “Code of Conduct for Members – Complaints Monitoring Report”, commented that the report considered by SAC on 17th October had been inaccurate, and this affected him personally because of the potential for reputational damage. The Chair commented that there was no formal procedural provision for consideration of matters arising from the minutes, only for consideration of their accuracy; however having heard from Councillor Golds he would allow a discussion on this occasion. A discussion followed which focused on the following points:
· Ms Jill Bell Head of Legal Services (Environment) advised that it would be inappropriate for Councillor Golds to make a submission to SAC on this matter, as the matter was not completed and members of the SAC might be required to take part in a hearing on the matter. Should SAC members present this evening consider the substantive content of the matter, it would prejudice their participation in any such future process, and that should be prevented. Ms Bell also stated that she considered the report considered by the SAC to have been factually correct at the time it was considered.
· Councillor Golds continued to assert that the report and oral position update considered by the SAC had not been fully accurate and gave some background for his view. Had he been aware of the content of the report at the time he would have attended the SAC meeting with a lawyer to correct the inaccuracy. Also commented that the Localism Act 2011 had abolished the statutory ‘Standards Regime’ and the matter could not be lawfully presented to the SAC for future determination. He considered that Officers and the SAC were attempting to silence him on the matter, when natural justice should allow him the opportunity for redress.
· The Chair commented that there was no intention to silence Councillor Golds but it was important to adhere to the correct procedural processes. Accordingly he sought and was given clarification as to locus of the SAC in considering a matter arising on the minutes, and the process to be followed were an erroneous report to have been presented to the SAC for consideration. Officers responded that a formal complaint should be lodged under the Complaints Procedure.
· Majority consensus that it was inappropriate for the SAC to consider the matter at this juncture for reasons including:
o There was a formal complaints process that could be followed.
o Uncertainty of the locus of the SAC to deal with the substantive content of the complaint.
o The importance of taking account of the legal advice given earlier in the meeting, that consideration of the substantive content of the matter may prejudice participation in any future process to determine the matter.