Agenda and draft minutes

Attached for information.

The Sub-Committee noted the Code of Conduct which had been circulated for their information.

To consider whether the public should now be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public were present during those items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972; and, if it is decided to exclude the public on those grounds, the Committee to resolve accordingly on the motion of the Chairman.

The Committee resolved to exclude the public from the meeting during discussion of the following item on the grounds that if members of the public were present it was likely that, given the nature of the business to be transacted, that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 which could reveal information relating to an individual and it was not in the public interest to publish this information.

To consider the attached report from the Monitoring Officer.

Following a meeting of the Individuals Overview & Scrutiny Sub-Committee held on 27 January 2015 a member of the public had submitted a complaint alleging:

1.    That Councillor X had disclosed information they had provided to a third party, without their permission, which had then been used by the third party to submit a business case;

2.    That Councillor X had a conflict of interest between their role as a trustee of the third party and their role on the Sub-Committee.

The Monitoring Officer had advised that the matter be not investigated as, on balance, he did not see any significant benefit from an investigation.

The Sub-Committee had been advised that the Independent Person had concurred with this advice.

The Sub-Committee agreed that the complaint merited no further investigation and should be dismissed.

To consider the report of the Monitoring Officer.

The Monitoring Officer reported that he had received three complaints involving Councillor Y. These were:

1.    A complaint by Councillor Z against Councillor Y;

2.    A complaint by Councillor Y against Councillor Z; and

3.    A complaint by Councillor W against Councillor Y.

The Monitoring Officer informed the Sub-Committee that since he had received the complaints Councillor Y had resigned as a Councillor.

Both Councillor Z and Councillor Y had accused the other of calling them a liar. Councillor Y had admitted he had called Councillor Z a liar but had refused to apologise.

The third complaint by Councillor W concerned an incident which had taken place in Council officers in front of witnesses.

Initially the Monitoring Officer had advised that given the factual inter relationship between Councillors Z and Y either both complaints or neither complaint should be referred for further investigation. The third complaint might merit further investigation.

The Independent Person had indicated his agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Monitoring Officer.

In the light of the changed circumstances the Monitoring Officer now advised that he could see no merit in further investigation of any of the three complaints. 

The Sub-Committee agreed:

1.    The complaint by Councillor Z against Councillor Y merited no further investigation and should be dismissed;

2.    The complaint by Councillor Y against Councillor Z merited no further investigation and should be dismissed; and

3.    The complaint by Councillor W against Councillor Y merited no further investigation and should be dismissed.