Issue - meetings

The Committee was informed about proposed changes to the procedure for considering allegations against breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct which the Adjudication & Review Committee had considered and approved at its meeting on 4 February 2015.  This had now been referred to the Governance Committee for consideration about whether to include the arrangements in the Council’s Constitution.

Members expressed a number of differing views on whether the procedure before them was strictly necessary and were informed that whilst a protocol was required, what that contained – and its extent – was at the discretion of each local authority.  Members were further informed that the procedure before them was comparable with those in many other authorities and was designed to ensure that the process was fair, effective and timely.

A member raised the question about the absence of an appeal mechanism within the process and was advised that this would not be appropriate as any decision which a Member considered to be unreasonable could be challenged by referring the matter to either the Local Government Ombudsman or to a Judicial Review.

After discussion, the adoption of the process as it stood was put to the vote at the request of a Member.

In favour of the motion: Councillors: Michael White, Roger Ramsey, Melvin Wallace, Damian White, Robert Benham, Ray Morgon, Stephanie Nunn, Barry Mugglestone, Linda van den Hende, Darren Wise, Lawrence Webb and Ian de Wulverton

Against the motion: Councillor: David Durant

The motion was CARRIED by 12 votes to one.

The Committee noted the report and its appendices and resolved that it be adopted for use by the Council and that the arrangements for dealing with alleged breaches of the draft Members’ Code of Conduct (Appendix 1 to the report) be included in the Council’s Constitution.

The Interim Director of Legal and Governance reminded the Committee that at the last meeting, the Committee had authorised him to make some changes to the proposed revision to the Code of Conduct complaints procedure and that the documents before Members were the result of those changes.

He explained that at the last meeting he had stated that – in response to a member’s explicit concerns about the inclusion of an appeal process within the procedure, there was no evidence from anywhere else that such a process existed – certainly not within the procedures he had either developed or helped develop, nor in those he had had any experience of.

He drew Members attention to the report commencing at 2.7 and assured the Committee that there were sufficient safeguards within the process to ensure that there would be no need for a Member to feel that they were being denied justice if, at the end of the process, a Hearings panel upheld the allegation(s) because the process to that point was robust, open and simple.  The Monitoring Officer would review the claims informally first to see if the matter could be resolved, if not an Assessment Panel drawn from members of the Adjudication and Review Committee would consider it further and if it was of the opinion that there were grounds for a formal hearing, that would be undertaken by a Hearings panel also drawn from the Adjudication and Review Committee, but different from the Assessment Panel. 

He was mindful of the fact that there were only 10 Members available in the Committee and also that the largest objection to the process currently in use was that it was open-ended and this tended to delay and even frustrate natural justice.  This process was strictly time managed and if it was extended by the addition of an appeal procedure, there would be delay, cost and the difficulty in finding an appropriate Appeal Panel.

Councillor Burton asked for permission to present his objection to the procedure being adopted without an appeal mechanism and spoke about the right of an accused to appeal, citing processes (like parking offences) where there were appeal processes to ensure that the innocent were not penalised through process error or other mistake.  He contended that it was an important legal principle enshrined in law since Magna Carta and to remove it from the process would be to render that process flawed and open to abuse.

A Member observed that Magna Carta provided for trial by one’s peers – and the process as set out in the report provided for that.  Another member observed that appeals procedures did not exist in all places, citing clubs disciplinary procedures for their members.  The club’s disciplinary board determined the decision from the facts and set the penalty.  There was no appeal process there and this was identical in form to that.  Where appeals processes were in place they were more often for general matters (like parking fines).  It was conceded that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18