Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London E14 2BG
Contact: Angus Taylor, Democratic Services, Tel: 020 7364 4333 E-mail: angus.taylor@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
MR MATTHEW ROWE (CHAIR) IN THE CHAIR
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Abjol Miah, Councillor Mohammed Mufti Miah and Mr Patrick Barry O’Connor (Co-opted member of SAC.
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST PDF 64 KB To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Interim Monitoring Officer. Minutes: Councillor Joshua Peck declared a personal and prejudicial interest under Agenda Item 3.1 “Code of Conduct for Members - Complaints and Investigation Monitoring” on the grounds that information contained in the report related to a complaint he had raised.
Councillor Peck subsequently withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the item.
Action by: Angus Taylor (Principal Committee Officer, Democratic Services)
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 175 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Standards (Advisory) Committee held on 08 September 2014.
Minutes: Matter arising from minutes of 8th September SAC
The Chair, referencing paragraph 2 of the minute pertaining to agenda item 3 [page 3 of minutes page 7 of agenda] commented that the Registration of Interests form had not been circulated to SAC members. Angus Taylor undertook to circulate it the next day.
The Chair Moved and it was:-
Resolved
That, subject to amendment to correct typographical errors in the name of Meic Sullivan-Gould, the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Standards (Advisory) Committee, held on 8th September 2014, be agreed as a correct record of the proceedings, and the Chair be authorised to sign them accordingly.
Action by: Angus Taylor (Principal Committee Officer, Democratic Services)
|
|
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|
Code of Conduct for Members - Complaints and Investigation Monitoring PDF 107 KB To note the complaints and investigation monitoring information contained in this report.
Minutes: Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer [IMO]) introduced and highlighted key points in the report, which: · Reported on the number and nature of complaints received about alleged failures to comply with the Code of Conduct for Members, and action taken as a result for the information of the SAC, in accordance with the arrangements for dealing with such complaints agreed by the full Council. · Advised of reporting requirements, under the arrangements, in cases where the Monitoring Officer (MO) extends the time period of investigations into complaints from 2 to 3 months.
Points highlighted by Meic Sullivan-Gould included:- · His intention that the current backlog of long outstanding complaints [of failures to comply with the Code of Conduct for Members] should be concluded later in 2014 and that because of much work undertaken by Mark Norman (Legal Services) with the exception of 1 complaint these were ready to progress to an Investigation and Disciplinary Sub-Committee (IDSC) of the SAC, the arrangements for which (and related mandatory training) were now being finalised. . · The exception was complaint IDSC02/2013 which had recently been identified as requiring progression and conclusion, and which had slipped through the net due to the responsible officer leaving the Authority’s employ in March. He had now reviewed the case, and it was now being progressed in accordance with the arrangements. · There had been no new complaints since he had joined the Authority’s employ in January 2014 which required processing under the arrangements.
A comprehensive discussion followed which focused on the following points:- · Comment that given the investigation of a complaint about Member conduct was very stressful for the subject of the investigation. Accordingly when the Council had discussed the arrangements for dealing with such complaints as a corporate body [September 2013], it had considered that where a complaint was referred for investigation, it was preferable for such an investigation to be completed within 1 month, but agreed a requirement for completion within 2 months, with provision for a further extension of 1 month [by the MO] but also agreed a process for this. It was not therefore unreasonable to expect investigations to be completed within 3 months, however the duration of several investigations set out in the report were much longer (3 over a year and 1 of 18 months). There was also certainty that the investigation report relating to a complaint lodged by a SAC member had been received by the Authority 5 months previously. Accordingly consideration that:- o It appeared little effort was being made to progress complaints through the process, and the process for extension of investigations by the MO was not being adhered to. o It was disrespectful to Members for complaints not to be completed in a timely way. o It was necessary for the SAC to express displeasure over the unacceptable duration of investigations, and for the SAC Chair to take a personal interest in the progression of complaints requiring investigation, as this could not be allowed to continue. Meic Sullivan-Gould acknowledged that the comments/ ... view the full minutes text for item 31. |
|
Covert investigation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 PDF 137 KB Consider and comment upon the information provided in the report.
Minutes: Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer (IMO) drew Members’ attention to the maps referred to at paragraph 3.25 of the report, in respect of RIPA activity relating touting and underage sales predominantly in the Brick Lane area, which had been Tabled, a copy of which would be interleaved with the minutes. Meic Sullivan-Gould introduced and highlighted key points in the report, which provided the SAC with information on the Authority’s authorisation of covert investigations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 and enforcement activity arising from these, together with outcomes of independent inspections of the RIPA arrangements operated by the Authority, in accordance with the oversight role for elected Members recommended by the Home Office in relation to Part 2 of RIPA 2000.
A comprehensive discussion followed which focused on the following points:-
· Serious concern expressed regarding the lack in take up of RIPA authorised surveillance by the Authority and the rationale behind this. Comment that there were many serious issues in the borough e.g. Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), fly tipping, unlawful street vending, underage sales of different product, fraud, touting and breaches of licences, which posed serious problems for residents, and generated many Member Enquiries, which might be mitigated through the use of covert surveillance to provide evidence to deal with the perpetrators of such offences; the lack of such evidence often being cited as a reason why such issues couldn’t be addressed. Although proper scrutiny of such surveillance was appropriate, given a population of approaching 350-500 thousand the reporting of only 3 applications by the Authority for RIPA authorisation of covert surveillance in 2013/14, appeared to show that residents of the borough were being let down by the Authority not exploring the use of powers available to it for their benefit. The lack of evidence cited at Licensing Sub-Committees in relation to alleged breaches of licences and the levels of ASB in communal and public areas known to elected Members which continued unchecked appeared to show a lack of joined up working by the Council to provide surveillance evidence to address the problems. The advice of the IMO was sought and given as to which committee should be examining this and in particular the Officer rationale for not using covert surveillance with RIPA authorisation in relation to the Council’s priorities for RIPA outlined in the SAC report. Meic Sullivan-Gould responded that paras 3.6 – 3.8 of the report set out that the policy and priorities of the Authority for use of RIPA surveillance had been agreed by Cabinet in October 2012 and comprised an appendix to the Authority’s Enforcement Policy, which was due for review by the Executive in 2015. It would be appropriate for the representations made by SAC members and Ward Members to inform the review process, however it was an Executive function to determine what the Council’s Enforcement Policy comprised of. The Chair also commented that the role of SAC was to oversee the appropriate use of RIPA and the points raised were a ... view the full minutes text for item 32. |
|
Complaints and Information Governance Annual Report 2013/ 2014 (To Follow) To consider and comment on the information set out in the report.
Minutes: It was noted that the report had been withdrawn.
|
|
Update on the Democracy and Governance Web-pages and related technology PDF 105 KB To note the information contained in the report and comment on the existing website and future development priorities.
Minutes: Matthew Mannion (Committee Services Manager) introduced and summarised key points in the report (highlighting some points by reference to the live website via laptop/ projector screen) which provided the SAC with an update on information displayed on the Authority’s website about Members and governance, recent developments and potential future developments for this and other related areas, with the SAC invited to comment from the perspective of ethical governance arrangements for the Authority. Beverley McKenzie (Members Support Manager) was also in attendance for this item.
Points highlighted by Matthew Mannion included:- · An apology that Member timesheet information had not been available on the website until very recently. The suppliers of the software (Modern.Gov) used in Democratic Services had built a bespoke timesheet module for LBTH, but technical hitches with the public pages for this had taken some time to resolve. · Officers had recently merged separate databases holding different packages of information on Members so it was now all held in Modern.Gov, and this allowed better presentation of that information to the public. · The provision for Members to self-serve in updating their information on the website live or with a check by Officers was underway, and when rolled out this would provide Members with more independence. A comprehensive discussion followed which focused on the following points:- · Clarification sought and given as to Member responsibilities for updating their information on the Authority’s website, arrangements for monitoring this and sanctions for failure to do so. Members were responsible for updating their web information and would be encouraged to do so, but there was no formal sanction for not doing so. The Register of Member Interests was treated differently as since the Localism Act 2013 non-disclosure of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) in the Register of Member Interests within 28 days was a criminal offence that would be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Members Code of Conduct also required this; the same applied with declarations of DPIs at meetings of the Authority. However both were silent on declaration of a wider class of interests and associated sanctions; non-disclosure might give rise to perceptions of bias/ pre-determination/ not acting wholly in the Public Interest and the MO expected Officers to act in such cases and it might also give rise to complaints under the Code of Conduct.The MO had a statutory obligation under Section 5 of the Local Government & Housing Act 1989 to report to the Executive or full Council in such instances, as there were precedents where Judicial Review for maladministration caused by injustice had been won. It had been identified in discussion at the last SAC meeting that the treatment of declarations of interest was inconsistent and needed to be included within the review of the Code of Conduct. · Welcomed the amalgamation of Member information on the Authority’s website as this made it more navigable for the public and therefore transparent. · Consideration that although the provision for Members to self-serve in updating their information on the website via the internet ... view the full minutes text for item 34. |
|
Members' Induction 2014 PDF 70 KB To note the information contained in the report and comment on the future learning and development programme.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Beverley McKenzie (Members Support Manager) introduced and summarised key points in the report which provided the SAC with information on:- · Development and implementation of the Members’ Induction programme (MIP) and evaluation thereof. · The ongoing Members’ Learning and Development Programme
Points highlighted by Beverley McKenzie included:- · The methodology used to assess the Members’ Induction Programme and poor Member response. · Member Induction had covered the completion of Member timesheets. · The second phase of MIP to equip Members with a better understanding of the Council and their roles was underway with topical seminars such as the Care Act.
A discussion followed which focused on the following points:- · The Chair thanked Ms McKenzie for the report which had provided comfort in relation to the existence of a structured MIP and of mandatory training elements. · A Member commented that some elements of useful training had been missing from the MIP such as planning/ development related training. The Chair, and other co-opted SAC members, also commented that, as Co-opted SAC members, they had not been aware of the MIP training session on “Ethics and Standards” which would have been helpful to undertake their role. Additionally because the Chair had not been informed of, or invited to the MIP training session, SAC input that might have added value to the session was not available. SAC members suggested that in future the SAC Chair be invited to this MIP training session. [Action BM] · Clarification was sought and given as to attendance at mandatory MIP training sessions and the definition of mandatory. These sessions were well attended but not fully attended. There was no sanction for non-attendance and Officers were intending to reschedule some sessions and encourage attendance. Meic Sullivan-Gould commented that some training was a pre-condition of sitting on a quasi-judicial committee such as Development Committee of Licensing Committee; otherwise training requirements labelled as mandatory by the authority were difficult to enforce. · Noting the Officer response, the Chair commented that he considered that SAC had a role to play in encouraging reluctant trainees as this was an important matter. He requested a report on Members that had not attended after mandatory MIP sessions had been run several times and suggested that upon its presentation the SAC should consider writing to offending Members. [Action BM] It was clarified that Member attendance at training sessions was published on the Authority’s website. Beverley McKenzie commented that significant Officer time was invested on Member seminars as Officers and the Corporate Management Team considered it important for Members to be informed about the functions/ subjects covered, however often Member attendance was very poor. · Commented that many existing/ longstanding Members had chosen not to attend some mandatory MIP sessions after an assessment of the time commitment against the usefulness of training in the context of their experience in the context of heavy commitments; similarly with MIP sessions recommended to Members e.g. 2 hour Casework session. Accordingly consideration that a twin track approach would have been more appropriate with full training for new Members and ... view the full minutes text for item 35. |
|
Members' Attendance and Timesheets Monitoring (To Follow) PDF 114 KB To note the monitoring information set out in the report and consider whether any further action is required by the SAC Chair in connection with it.
Additional documents: Minutes: Matthew Mannion (Committee Services Manager) Introduced and summarised key points in the report, which provided an update on a range of matters related to Councillors attendance at formal meetings and training events, completion of timesheets and the Register of Interests.
He informed SAC Members that he had Tabled an updated version of Appendix 1 to the report “Members Monthly Timesheets – Summary of Returns” which reflected the most current information, a copy of which would be interleaved with the minutes.
The Clerk informed the Chair that Councillor Denise Jones had asked for her sincere apologies for not having completed timesheets ( which was disrupted by the Citrix system being down on 21 October) to be relayed to SAC.
A discussion followed which focused on the following points:- · SAC referenced discussion earlier in the proceedings [agenda item 3.4 “Update on the Democracy and Governance Web-pages and related technology”] which was pertinent to this agenda item. · SAC members were content with the need for transparency from elected Members [in demonstrating their undertaking of activities to fulfil the expected time commitment for this position. · SAC members were content for the SAC Chair to write to Members who failed to completed timesheets asking them to do so. · The Chair commented that he would like paragraphs 4.1- 4.3 of the report, which set out the context for the requirement on Members to complete timesheets, to be uploaded to the appropriate page/s of the LBTH website for information. Matthew Mannion undertook to do so expeditiously. · Referencing para 6.3 of the report the Chair commented that it may be helpful for the SAC to write to those Members failing to provide a nil return in response if there were no changes to the 6 month reminder to update the Register of Member Interests, as it would be a matter encompassed by the Member Code of Conduct if, should events occur which identified an interest perceived to be prejudicial, and it came to light that the Member should have, but had not, updated the Register. Clarification was also sought as to interests that should be declared on the Register. Meic Sullivan-Gould advised that the 6 month reminder did not cover the issue of Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI). Members were required to notify the Monitoring Officer of DPIs within 28 days else a criminal offence would have been committede, which would be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. A wider class of interests e.g. membership of a charitable board also needed to be disclosed in the interest of public transparency, and a provision could be implemented for Members to declare these at meetings. · Noting the Officer response, consideration that Members should declare non-pecuniary interests generally not just at meetings of the Authority, as with trustees of charities, even although this was not a requirement following the Localism Act 2012, because these could be perceived to influence decision making. Consideration also that such interests should be identifiable from a working definition rather than a list. Meic Sullivan-Gould advised ... view the full minutes text for item 36. |
|
Review of Code of Conduct for Members and standards arrangements (Oral Report) PDF 85 KB The OSC will receive an update on progression of draft proposals relating to the review following a meeting of the Interim Monitoring Officer, SAC Chair and Interim Monitoring Officer on 16 October.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer) introduced and highlighted key points in the report, which provided the SAC with information on:-: · Background to the review of the Code of Conduct for Members (Code) and the nature interests to be encompassed by it. · Potential principles to form the basis for a revised Code. · The range of sanctions currently available for breach of a revised Code.
Points highlighted by Meic Sullivan-Gould included:- · Para 8 of the Hoey Ainscough review paper at Appendix , which identified a lack of clarity in the current Code in relation to expected behaviours and both Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs) and other interests; and recommended re-writing with greater clarity. · His recommendation that the SAC agree that behaviours in the Code be recast on the basis on the 7 Principles of Public Life identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CPSL) at Appendix 2. · Appendix 3, provided at the request of the Chair and Independent Person (IP), comprised of a list of sanctions agreed by Monitoring Officers across the country for breaches of the Code, although SAC should note that in response to requests for more specific sanctions the CSPL would be reviewing the list. Due to the Localism Act 2012 the sanctions were now very limited in scope, ranging from censure to further training and withdrawing of Council equipment/ facilities rather than suspension or disqualification of a Councillor as before. · SAC had previously identified that the Authority’s arrangements for dealing with complaints had not been revised to reflect the reduction in the scope of related sanctions, resulting in overly elaborate complaints processes in the context of the sanctions available, that now needed streamlined. · SAC had previously identified that there was a need for greater openness about a wider class of personal interests, in particular personal relationships which could give rise to a reasonable perception of bias in decision-making, that were not captured by the narrow statutory definition of a DPI. There needed to be a wider range of registerable interests at Tower Hamlets, in the context of potential Judicial Reviews for maladministration; but also greater separation and clarity between DPIs non DPIs and other interests. · Given that the most significant sanction for a breach of the Code was a rebuke of the Member by full Council, this was essentially already available to meeting Chairs in powers to deal with obstructive or improper behaviour, so this should be broadened to establish a principle that chairs of meetings be empowered to enforce the Code of conduct. This would be a faster and more direct process for dealing with such misconduct.
A comprehensive discussion followed which focused on the following points:- · Referencing discussion at agenda item 3.1 “Code of Conduct for Members - Complaints and Investigation Monitoring” on the unacceptable length of time that it took to conclude complaints under the Code, the Chair commented that SAC must note that there was now a limited range of sanctions to improve Member behaviour in relation to the Code, and the ... view the full minutes text for item 37. |
|
ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT To consider any other unrestricted business that the Chair considers to be urgent.
Minutes: Barry Lowe Non-Attendance at SAC
The Chair informed SAC members that:- · He had noted that Barry Lowe (Co-opted SAC member) had not attended any of the four SAC meetings held in the 2013/14 Municipal Year, nor the SAC meeting held on 8 September [2014/15 Municipal Year], neither was he present this evening or sent apologies for absence. · He had sought the advice of the Clerk to ascertain what the appropriate next steps would be for the SAC to address this non-attendance, and following the advice of Legal Services the clerk had:-
o Endeavoured to contact Mr Lowe by telephone without success. o Written to Mr Lowe again on behalf of the Chair:- ØAsking if Mr Lowe wished to continue as a co-opted member of the SAC. ØNotifying him that the Chair proposed that his non-attendance be raised at this SAC meeting and inviting him to make any representations he would like SAC to consider. No response had been received, however the letter had only sent on Monday 20 October by post and email. · SAC members had recently received an email from the Clerk informing them of the resignation of Denzil Johnson (Co-opted SAC member) and therefore there may be two vacancies for the position of Co-opted SAC member to address.
During a short discussion SAC members expressed the view that:- · Mr Lowe’s non-attendance should be addressed as soon as possible. · That a recruitment exercise should commence immediately with and advertisement for the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr Johnson. · Should a further vacancy be created by the removal of Mr Lowe from SAC membership, that this be filled by the applicant assessed as coming second in the recruitment exercise.
The Chair summarised that:- · Mr Lowe had, to date, not provided a satisfactory explanation as to past non-attendance. · Had been notified that SAC would discuss his non-attendance this evening, but only had a limited opportunity to make representations for SAC to consider. · SAC members considered this non-attendance should be addressed so that co-opted members who did not wish to continue in this role could be replaced and all vacancies addressed in one exercise. Accordingly the Chair Moved and it was:-
Resolved
1. That SAC again consider the matter of Mr Lowe’s non-attendance at the next SAC meeting [13 January 2015] together with any response from Mr Lowe to the Clerk’s letter dated 20 October 2014, or any representations made for SAC to consider; and at that point, should it be appropriate, that SAC draw the attention of full Council [21 January 2015] to Mr Lowe’s non-attendance and recommend that he be replaced on the Committee.
2. That a recruitment exercise commence immediately [22 October 2014], initially with an advertisement, for the position/s of co-opted membership to the SAC.
Action by: Angus Taylor (Principal Committee Officer, Democratic Services) Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer, LPG) John Williams (Service Head Democratic Services, LPG)
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC In view of the contents of the remaining items on the agenda the Committee is recommended to adopt the following motion:
“That, under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section Two business on the grounds that it contains information defined as Exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972.”
NOTE: EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL SECTION (Pink Papers)
The exempt committee papers in the agenda will contain information, which is commercially, legally or personally sensitive and should not be divulged to third parties. If you do not wish to retain these papers after the meeting, please hand them to the Committee Officer present.
Minutes: The agenda circulated contained no exempt/ confidential business and there was therefore no requirement to exclude the press and public to allow for its consideration.
SUMMARY OF EXEMPT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL MINUTES Nil items.
Minutes: Nil items
|
|
ANY OTHER EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT To consider any other exempt/ confidential business that the Chair considers to be urgent.
Minutes: Nil items
|