Agenda and draft minutes

At the meeting on 1 October, Councillor Ryan disclosed a personal interest and withdrew from the proceedings as he felt he could not give an unbiased view of the complaints under consideration.

At the meeting on 15 October, Councillor Best replaced Councillor Ryan on the panel.

There were no other apologies for absence.

Members are invited to disclose any interests in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting.  Members may still disclose an interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

5. CONSIDERATION OF A COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER AGAINST ANOTHER MEMBER.

Councillor Timothy Ryan, Personal, The Councillor did not feel he could give an unbiased decision on the complaints..

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 Assessment Panel agreed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of the meeting.

To consider the report of the Monitoring Officer (attached ).

It was proposed by Councillor Best and seconded by Councillor Sutton that, under section 5.2 of the Council’s Constitution, paragraph 4.4 (g) the matter be dismissed as more than three months had elapsed between the alleged incident and the date of receipt of the allegation.

Councillor Van den Hende raised that complaints from the public had previously been dealt with after a period of greater than three months but it was pointed out that this was under a different Chairman and that it was important to be consistent.

The Panel noted the comments by the Director of Legal Governance in his report addressing the issue of the length of time the complaints had been submitted in but again felt it was important to remain consistent in how complaints were dealt with.

The Independent Person stated that a decision to dismiss the complaints for this reason raised concerns that this could bring the Council into disrepute. The Panel noted the comments.

The Panel AGREED unanimously that the complaints be dismissed and not investigated further due to there being more than three months between the date of the alleged incident and the date of receipt of the allegation. This decision was taken under section 5.2 of the Council’s Constitution, paragraph 4.4 (g).