Mrs Margaret Hill was confirmed as the Chair of this meeting and for the duration of the hearing.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

Members of Assessment Sub-committees are not prevented from sitting on Hearing Sub-committees.  However Mr Colton, Ms Fraser, Mr Greggains and Councillor Parsons asked that it be noted that they had been Members of one or both of the Standards Assessment Sub-committees which met on 23 April 2009 and 21 September 2009 in relation to the complaint being considered at this meeting.

To confirm the procedure for the hearing, attached.

The Sub-committee was advised on the following points of procedure. 

Standards for England had confirmed that, where reports were for confidential consideration, it was not appropriate to send the Investigating Officer’s confidential Report and agenda papers to the complainant, as indicated in paragraph 5(c) of the procedure.  Therefore the complainant had seen copy of the public document pack for this meeting.  The procedure would be amended accordingly.

The position regarding cross-examination was considered, and it was agreed not to amend the procedure to permit this.

In accordance with paragraph 6, the Sub-committee would be advised by the Head of Legal and Electoral Services, who would be assisted by Ms Estelle Dehon of Counsel

The procedure for the hearing was confirmed and a brief summary order of proceedings agreed.

To decide, having regard to the particular nature of the business to be transacted, whether or not to exclude the Press and Public during consideration of the following items on the grounds that they are likely to disclose exempt information by virtue of category 7c, as defined in Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4.

The Sub-committee commenced by considering the procedure for the hearing and the report of the Head of Legal and Electoral Services (Agenda Items 4 and 5) but having regard to the particular nature of the business to be transacted and the need to make frequent reference to the confidential appendices (Agenda Item 5), agreed that the press and public be excluded during consideration of the following items on the grounds that they were likely to disclose exempt information by virtue of paragraph 7(c) as defined in Access to Information Rule 10.4 and that the balance of public interest was in favour of not admitting the press and public.

To consider a report of an investigating officer appointed to investigate allegations that a Member has contravened the Members’ Code of Conduct, which has been referred for hearing following its consideration by the Standards Assessment Sub-Committee, and a response from the Councillor concerned.

Report of the Monitoring Officer attached

The Sub-committee considered a number of issues identified as ‘Preliminary’ or ‘Pre-hearing’ in Appendix A, and including a requested adjournment of the hearing.  The Sub-committee, which was ready to hear the complaint, was advised that it had to be convened within three months of the submission of the Investigating Officer’s report (namely before 10^th December) and that in the event of an adjournment, the hearing should be heard as soon as reasonably practicable.  It was noted that the councillor, who was not present, had indicated that he would not be available to attend any meeting of the sub-committee before 21^st December 2009.  The councillor had communicated that his reasons for this request were medical, although he had not submitted any supporting evidence to the Sub-committee.

RESOLVED:

1. That the issue raised in a pre-hearing e-mail as to the impartiality of members of the Sub-Committee was not accepted. The Sub-Committee had a duty to consider the complaint and was not of the opinion that apparent bias (as alleged) was substantiated.
2. That the preliminary point concerning delay had no merit as consideration of the complaint was not time-barred, memories of witnesses appeared detailed, and no real evidence of prejudice had been established.
3. That the preliminary point concerning capacity had some merit. However, it could not be determined at this stage as some of the evidence might invoke paragraph 2 of the Code.
4. It was unhelpful that the Pre-Hearing Forms had not been returned duly completed.
5. Witness statements which were anonymous would receive significantly less weight than if the persons making them were named.
6. The volume of evidence before the Sub-Committee was considerable and a further report of the Investigating Officer was not required.
7. It was for the person requesting an adjournment to provide evidence in support of the request.
8. That the Head of Legal and Electoral Services write to the Councillor, and invite response within fourteen days, on certain procedural matters including the calling of witnesses and further evidence, in accordance with The Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1085), sections 18(2) and 18(5) and the Determination Guidance of Standards for England.
9. That it be agreed to adjourn the meeting, and the hearing be reconvened and, having advised the Councillor subject of the complaint, continue on one of the following dates:-

Ø      Monday, 18^th January 2010

Ø      Tuesday, 19^th January 2010

Ø      Monday, 25^th January 2010

Ø      Thursday, 28^th January 2010

To consider the complaints under the Members' Protocol as set out in the Investigating Officer's report (item 5, Appendix B above), in the light of the evidence before the meeting and such further views as the Sub-Committee considers appropriate.

The Sub-committee noted that although the Investigating Officer’s report set out the complaints made under the Members’ Protocol, it made no conclusion.

RESOLVED:

That a presentation be made by the Investigating Officer on this matter in due course.