Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Committee Room 2 - Wallasey Town Hall. View directions

Items
No. Item

6.

Election of Chair

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That Councillor Phil Gilchrist be elected Chair for this meeting of the Panel.

7.

Members' Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest

Members of the Panel are asked to consider whether they have any disclosable pecuniary and/or any other relevant interest, in connection with any of the items on this agenda and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the interest.

Minutes:

Councillor Moira McLaughlin informed that she was in attendance at the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14 November 2017 which was the meeting where it was alleged that the subject Member, Councillor Paul Hayes had failed to comply with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

 

Councillor Phil Gilchrist informed that he had been present at a ’Task Force Working Party’ convened on the matter but he had no recollection of its proceedings.

8.

Article 9 of the Council's Constitution, The Members' Code of Conduct and Protocol pdf icon PDF 103 KB

The following documents are included with the agenda for Members’ information:

 

(a)  Article 9 of the Council’s Constitution which relates to The Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee;

 

(b)  The Members’ Code of Conduct; and

 

(c)  The Protocol on arrangements for investigating and making decisions in relation to allegations made under the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Panel considered a copy of Article 9 of the Council’s Constitution along with copies of The Members’ Code of Conduct and the Protocol which detailed the arrangements for Investigating and Making Decisions in relation to allegations made under The Members’ Code of Conduct.

 

Reference was made to Paragraph 10.1 of the Protocol that set out the arrangements for investigating and making decisions in relation to allegations made under the Members’ Code of Conduct and it was noted that the Investigator should make arrangements to hold interviews with relevant persons within ten working days of being appointed.  Councillor Chris Blakeley asked when the Investigator had been appointed and if he had met the timescales detailed above.  The Investigator informed that he had been appointed on 9 January 2018, had made some appointments by 17 January 2018 but had not been able to meet the timescale in respect of all the interviewees because one had not been available. He confirmed that he had made contact very quickly with the individuals concerned but not all had been able to meet him within the timescale.

 

Reference was made to Paragraph 16.1of the Protocol that stated that where a Standards Complaint has been referred for investigation and a finding of a breach had been found by the Investigator, the Standards Panel should be convened within 20 working days of the Monitoring Officer receiving the Investigator’s final report.  Councillor Chris Blakeley made the point that the Monitoring Officer had received the report on 19 June 2018 and 20 working days from that date was 16 July 2018.  Therefore, this timescale had not been adhered to.

 

Also, Councillor Chris Blakeley informed that Paragraph 8.5 of the Protocol stated that the investigation would be carried out having regard to any guidance provided by the Standards Committee and/or Monitoring Officer; and should normally be completed (i.e. a final report produced) within twelve weeks from the date the decision was made that the Standards Complaint should be investigated. However, the Investigator informed the Panel that some investigations could be concluded quickly but sometimes this was not the case.  He drew attention to the word ‘normally’ and emphasised that this did not mean every time. The Investigator confirmed that Investigations should be concluded as quickly as possible and stated that he was able to provide the reasons for not meeting the timescales but would only do so in the absence of the press and public.

 

Councillor Moira McLaughlin reported that she had met with officers, in the summer, to try to identify a date for the Standards Panel Hearing.  A date had initially been identified but unfortunately had proved to be unsuitable later on due to unforeseen circumstances.

 

It was also noted that the subject Member’s name had been included, in error, as an attendee on the Council’s website and by a process of elimination he had been identified as such by a member of the public.  Councillor Chris Blakeley considered that publicly naming the Member had tainted and damaged  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Consideration Given to the Breach of the Members' Code of Conduct Protocol

Minutes:

The Panel considered whether the subject Member would be able to have a fair hearing in view of the fact that the Protocol had been breached. It noted that it was the Independent Person’s view that the breaches had been unfortunate but that this would not prejudice the Panel’s decision.

 

The Deputy Monitoring Officer gave legal advice to the Panel.

 

RESOLVED: (2:1 with Councillor Chris Blakeley voting against)

 

(1)  the Panel considers that whilst the procedure has been breached by the subject Member being named, the disclosure would not have a material impact on the fairness of the procedure and the Panel will continue to hear the complaint and make a determination on it having heard the explanations offered; and

 

(2)  the Investigator, press and public be invited back into the meeting.

10.

Consideration of whether to hold the Hearing in Exempt Session

Minutes:

The Investigator, the press and the public returned to the meeting and were joined by the subject Member, Councillor Paul Hayes.

 

Councillor Phil Gilchrist informed that the following proposal had been moved, seconded and agreed:

 

  ‘That the Panel considers that whilst the procedure has been breached by the subject Member being named, the disclosure would not have a material impact on the fairness of the procedure and the Panel will continue to hear the complaint and make a determination on it having heard the explanations offered.’

 

Councillor Chris Blakeley informed that the Council had not followed its own Protocol.  The subject Member should have been afforded some protection but had in fact been named.  Consequently, he was of the view that this case should now be dismissed. However, this motion had not been seconded.  Councillor Moira McLaughlin informed that she believed that the subject Member would still be able to have a fair hearing.

 

The Panel then gave consideration to whether its proceedings should be held in the presence or in the absence of the press and public. The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that the report contained information about other individuals that had not been redacted.  She had spoken to the individuals named and none of them had any objections to the report being made public.

 

Councillor Paul Hayes confirmed that he had indicated that he did not object to the hearing being held in public.

 

Members were unanimous in their view that the hearing should be held in the presence of the press and public.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the press and public be not excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item of business and copies of the Investigator’s report be made available at the meeting and put into the public domain as soon as possible after the meeting.

11.

Consideration of a Standards Complaint pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Investigation Report

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Panel had regard to the findings that were set out by the Investigator and to the representations made by the subject Member.  Members asked a number of questions of both parties which were answered accordingly. 

12.

Exempt Information - Exclusion of the Press and Public

Minutes:

RESOLVED:

 

That under section 100 (A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the next item of business only, on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by paragraphs 1 and 5 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to that Act in that it contains information relating to an individual and of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.  The Public Interest test has been applied and favours exclusion.

13.

Panel Deliberations

Minutes:

The Panel deliberated in private before informing of its decision in the presence of both the Investigator and the subject Member and the press and public. The details are contained in the attached Decision Notice.

Decision Notice pdf icon PDF 3 MB