Issue - meetings

Consideration of a Request for Dispensation from Councillor Helen Osborn of Wiltshire Council

The Chairman invited the Monitoring Officer to outline the facts of the Dispensation request by Councillor Helen Osborn, who as a Trowbridge Town Councillor and a Wiltshire (unitary) Councillor is a dual-hatted (voting) member of the Trowbridge Community Area Board.

The members considered the facts of the request and the Monitoring Officer’s advice on their options and on the Standards for England guidance. In the discussion that followed several key questions were asked, and areas of common concern established.

Councillor Francis Morland, also present, wished to speak on the matter, and was invited to do so at this point. He felt that when dispensations were granted, they should not be given lightly, and that there was a high threshold set out in guidance and criteria for doing so. Councillor Morland further outlined a series of concerns surrounding the granting of dispensations, which were germane also to the requests being considered at the meeting: namely that the structure of Area Boards with executive power that had been established by Wiltshire Council, was creating a conflict of interests due to members dual-roles.

It was established that in the case of non-financial matters it would be unlikely that the Councillor’s interest would be both personal and prejudicial. However given that the dispensation request was to enable voting on a body which decides where grant funds are allocated – i.e. a financial matter, it was AGREED that Councillor Osborn had a prejudicial interest as a result of her position on an Area Board.

Nevertheless the panel were aware, and highlighted the fact that a key function of dispensations was to allow the Council to discharge its functions effectively. By common agreement the Committee felt they were able to let issues of precedence shape their opinions, but they could not have an overbearing influence on individual applications for a dispensation – which should be decided as per the guidelines, on a case-by-case basis.

The group were concerned that principles in the case of dispensations were in conflict with the structure of Area Boards that the Council had set up. It was especially unfortunate that a prejudicial interest could arise directly from a member’s position as an elected officer.

It was AGREED by the sub-committee that the Council’s business would be impeded if no dispensation were awarded, so there were grounds for a dispensation.

There were thus legitimate grounds to grant a dispensation,

Councillor Carter speculated that the future development of Community Area Boards was highly like to involve exercising executive control over the direction of more substantial amounts of money/funding, for more specific projects. In the current situation and even more in the possible future scenario the make-up of particular Area Boards could impact upon decision-making – for example a group of Parish Councils representing an urban area on an area board, voting for funding for their Town, at the expense of other rural parishes. This eventuality or even a perception of this happening or being able to happen would be unwelcome. The Chair agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3