Agenda item
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS - COMPLAINT REFERENCES IDSC/01/2013 and IDSC/07/2013
- Meeting of Replaces Postponed Meeting 13 Jan 2015, Standards Advisory Committee, Tuesday, 27th January, 2015 7.30 p.m., NEW (Item 6.1)
- View the reasons why item 6.1 is restricted
- View the background to item 6.1
To consider the report of the Interim Monitoring Officer
Minutes:
Councillor Joshua Peck left the room at this point in the meeting.
Meic Sullivan-Gould, Interim Monitoring Officer, in accordance with the Council’s code of conduct on the arrangements for dealing with complaints of breach of the Code of Conduct for Members, reported on two related complaints made by Councillor Joshua Peck about the alleged conduct of Councillor Alibor Choudhury. The complaints were investigated by an independent investigator who concluded that Councillor Choudhury failed to comply with the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members.
The Committee noted that having considered the outcome of the investigation, Councillor Peck had indicated that he did not wish to pursue his complaints further.
Members discussed asked a number of questions including the need for the publication of the outcome of the investigation, the views of the respondent on the outcome of the investigations, the appropriate sanctions which should be applied, in particular, the breach of the code of the Council’s Code of Conduct the Council in bringing the Council and/or the office of a Councillor into disrepute.
The Interim Monitoring Officer in response made the following points:
- That where an investigation found evidence of a failure to comply with the Code of conduct, the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Independent Person, would seek local resolution to the satisfaction of the complainant In this case;
- The Hearings Sub-Committee would advise the Monitoring Officer whether or not they consider there had been a breach of the Code and if they considered sanction was appropriate having heard the matter.
- The Hearings Sub-Committee’s recommendations were to be published anonymised in a local newspaper in the Public Notices Section and on the Council’s website a link to the notice shall remain on the front page of the Council’s website for a period of one month. Members queried the need for the publication to be anonymised. It was explained that it was a procedure set out in the Council’s Constitution and would require amending if Members considered that there was a need to do so.
- A member who was the subject of a finding by the Standards Advisory Committee that he/she had breached the code may appeal against that finding and/or against any sanction applied. It was noted that in this case, Councillor Alibor Choudhury had been supplied with a copy of the report, however a response had not been received from him, nor had he contested the findings in the report.
- Councillor Peck’s indication that he did not wish to pursue his complaints further meant that the matter would be discontinued without reference to the Hearings Sub-Committee.
- On the question of the need for sanctions against the breach of the code of the Council’s Code of Conduct the Council of bringing the Council and/or the office of a Councillor into disrepute, the Interim Monitoring Officer explained that the complaint was private dispute which had occurred. Members further queried the need for publication of the complaint if it was a private dispute between Councillors. It was suggested that the Interim Monitoring Officer be requested to remedy the anomaly whenever the Constitution was reviewed.
Action by: Meic Sullivan-Gould (Interim Monitoring Officer, LPG)
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.