The previous report, approved by the Committee at its meeting on 16 April 2012 is attached.  The proposals set out in the report were also approved by the Council at its meeting on 21 May 2012.

Further to Minute No. 25, the Committee had regard to the report and supporting appendices it had considered at its last meeting on 16 April 2012 when it had made its recommendations to the Council in relation to:

·  Constitution: Article 9 – Terms of Reference of the Standards Committee (and its Panels) to take effect from 1 July 2012.

·  Members’ Code of Conduct – to take effect from 1 July 2012

These recommendations had been put together by the Standards Committee’s Working Party who had worked together on a New Code of Conduct for Members and on arrangements for dealing with complaints against Members.  The Standards Committee had agreed them and they had then been endorsed at the Annual Council Meeting on 21 April 2012 (Minute No 14(iv) refers).

The Committee was asked to specifically refer to paragraph 2.16 of the report as follows:

‘The Standards Committee must now be politically balanced and will not include any Independent Members. Under the Localism Act 2012, the ‘Independent Member’ has been replaced by the ‘Independent Person’ who does not sit on the Standards Committee (or any of its Panels). The Council must appoint at least one ‘Independent Person’. Unfortunately, the definition in the Act of ‘Independent Person’ prevents the current Independent Members being appointed to this role.’

Some Members informed that they had misunderstood the paragraph.  They believed that politically balanced meant that each Political Group would have the same number of seats on the new Standards Committee and not that seats on the new Committee had to reflect the political make up of the Council and had been allocated on a five Labour, three Conservative and one Liberal Democrat basis.

It was reported that when it had become apparent that the term politically balanced in the report meant politically proportionate some Members had asked that the Working Party be reconvened.  It was noted that as there had not been a consensus across the three Political Groups to this request, the Working Party could not be reconvened. 

However, one Member was of the view that the request had been “virtually ignored” and that Officers had delayed in seeking a consensus to the request.  This was not accepted by the Head of Legal and Member Services.

Some Members raised concerns as they believed that Officers had not provided all of the information and facts available for them to make an informed decision.  They said that they had been told that the Council could choose to either have a Standards Committee or not have one and that they had misinterpreted political balance to mean a 3:3:3 basis which was the political makeup of the present Standards Committee.

Some Members informed that they had carried out research of their own and were now aware that the Council could set up a Standards Advisory Committee which the current Independent Members could continue to sit on and chair.  They were concerned that Officers had not advised them of this option previously.  Reference was made to Newham, Thanet  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2

The Committee, at its meeting on 26 January 2012, had received a report that had updated it on the implications of the Localism Act on the current Standards Regime.  Consequently, it had established a Working Group to explore, examine and develop a draft framework and such options, procedures, arrangements it considered necessary to enable the Council to discharge its duties and obligations under the Localism Act 2011 in relation to the Standards Regime from 1 July 2012. 

The Director of Law, HR and Asset Management had been requested to update the Members’ Code of Conduct as a starting point for the development of a new framework for the Standards Regime and to include the use and review of the existing Members’ Code of Conduct and written arrangements as the basis of any proposed changes (if required).  (Minute No. 18 refers.)

It was reported that the Working Group had met twice, on 1 and 28 March 2012, and had discussed the Council’s requirements for a new Standards Regime and a Councillor Complaints procedure in great detail.  This had then culminated in a report presented to the Committee by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management which sought its approval and onward recommendation to the Council in relation to:

(a)  changes to the Article 9 (Terms of Reference of the Standards Committee (and its Panels)) of the Council’s Constitution set out at Appendix 1 to the report;

(b)  the draft Members’ Code of Conduct set out at Appendix 2 to the report;

(c)  the draft Protocol: Arrangements for Investigating and Making Decisions in relation to allegations made under the Members’ Code of Conduct set out in Appendix 3 to the report;

(d)   the draft Complaint Form to be used in relation to complaints relating to the Members’ Code of Conduct set out at Appendix 4 to the report; and

(e)  authorising the Monitoring Officer to make arrangement to enable the Council to appoint ‘Independent Persons’ to support the effective administration of standards complaints and decisions, in accordance with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011.

The Committee noted that if it was minded to agree the proposed changes to the Terms of Reference of the Standards Committee (and its Panels) and the draft Members’ Code of Conduct, included with the report, then the Council’s approval would be required, in accordance with the Constitution.

Mr Ken Harrison acknowledged the hard work that had been undertaken by Members of the Working Group they had worked very well together on this important piece of work.  He made reference to the thoroughness of the Director’s report and congratulated the Members of the Working Party on all that they had been able to achieve in such a short period of time.  Mr Harrison also acknowledged that the Head of Legal and Member Services also deserved credit for the work he had put into this important initiative.

It was noted that there would be a recruitment process to select the Independent Person(s) required under the Localism Act  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25