Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

To elect a Chairman for this meeting only.

Resolved:

To elect Councillor Howard Greenman as Chairman for this meeting only.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations.

To note the meeting procedure and assessment criteria for the review.

The procedure for the meeting was noted.

To consider passing the following resolution:

To agree that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public from the meeting for the business specified in Item Number 4  because it is likely that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public.

Paragraph 1 - information relating to an individual

Resolved:

To agree that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public from the meeting for the business specified in Minute No.30  because it is likely that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public.

Paragraph 1 - information relating to an individual

The Review Sub-Committee considered the review request in relation to an assessment decision regarding Councillor Anthony Doel of Southwick Parish Council. The Initial Assessment of the Deputy Monitoring Officer had been to take no further action.

The Sub-Committee went through the initial tests required by the local assessment criteria, and agreed with the assessment of the Deputy Monitoring Officer that the complaint related to the subject member, that he was office at the time of the alleged incident, and was acting in his capacity as a councillor. They therefore then had to determine whether the remaining assessment criteria were met and, if so, whether  the matters alleged in the complaint were, if proven, capable of breaching the Code of Conduct of the Parish Council.

In reaching its decision the Review Sub-Committee relied upon the original complaint and supporting information, the response of the subject member, the initial assessment and the additional information submitted by the Complainant in his request for a review of the initial decision to take no further action. They also took into account the comments made by the complainant and the representative of the subject member who attended the review sub-committee meeting. The Sub-Committee adjourned on 25 August 2016 to seek clarification on several queries in relation to the papers submitted by both parties, and reconvened on 4 October 2016. They therefore also took into account the comments of the complainant and the subject member on the points to be clarified.

Timing of the Complaint

A query had been raised as to whether the complaint had been submitted in time as required by procedure. The Local Assessment criteria states a complaint ‘will not be referred for investigation when it is made more than 20 working days from the date upon which the complainant became aware of the matter giving rise to the complaint’.

It was acknowledged by all parties that the complaint had been made more than 20 working days after the dates of the meetings at which the breaches were alleged to have occurred. However, as worded, the assessment criteria specified the timing should be calculated from when the complainant became aware of the matter giving rise to the complaint. The complainant maintained that he became aware of the matters in May 2016, and there being no evidence to contradict this, the Sub-Committee were of the view that the complaint should therefore be considered as having been made within time.

They did, however, feel that the Standards Committee should consider whether the assessment criteria wording should be amended in future, acknowledging that while a strict deadline of 20 days from the time of an alleged breach was unreasonable, (given the possibility the alleged breach could have occurred  in such a way no one could be aware at the time), provision could be made to consider if a complainant should reasonably have been or been able to be aware of matters, for instance where public minutes had been published of a meeting where a breach  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.