Issue - meetings

The Committee considered the report of the Interim Deputy Head of Legal Partnership on complaints received under the Members’ Code of Conduct together with the schedule setting out further information in respect of the complaints received between 1 January 2017 and 31 October 2017.  It was noted that:

·  In the last report to the Committee it was reported that for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 May 2017, there had been one new complaint which related to three separate subject Members. Unfortunately, due to an error in the recording procedure, this was incorrect.  The procedure had now been rectified, and in fact there had been six complaints during the period relating to eight subject Members.  Four of the complaints related to Parish Councillors and two to Borough Councillors.  Following initial assessment, none of the complaints were progressed as four failed the “Legal Jurisdiction Test” and two failed the “Local Assessment Criteria”.

·  Since the last report to the Committee, there had been five new complaints; three of the complaints related to Parish Councillors and two related to Borough Councillors.  Two of the complaints were at the initial assessment stage, two had not been progressed as they failed the “Local Assessment Criteria” and one was dealt with by informal resolution as the Parish Council agreed to training on the Code of Conduct, and this was delivered by the Monitoring Officer.

In response to questions, the Interim Deputy Head of Legal Partnership explained that:

·  The schedule circulated at the meeting contained details of all of the complaints received during the period 1 January 2017 to 31 October 2017.

·  The Constitution provided for a Hearings Sub-Committee to meet to consider any complaint which remained valid after investigation and consideration by the Monitoring Officer in consultation, as required, with the Independent Person.  To date, the Hearings Sub-Committee had not been required to meet.  Last year a complaint involving two subject Members had been referred to independent investigation; however, following the resignation of both subject Members the investigations ceased and the matters closed as it was considered that it would not be in the public interest to take matters any further forward.  If the subject Members had not resigned, and, depending upon the findings of the investigation, it might have been necessary to hold the first meeting of the Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.