Agenda and minutes

Mr Laverick, independent person, was welcomed to his first meeting of the committee.

At this point, Members are asked to declare:

·        Any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests

·        Any prejudicial interests

·        Any disclosable pecuniary interests

which they may have in respect of business on this agenda.

Members were asked to declare any personal interests not included on the Register of Interests, any prejudicial interests or any disclosable pecuniary interests which they may have in respect of the business on the agenda.  None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Standards Committee held on 28 November 2012.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the Joint Standards Committee meeting held on 28 November 2012 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who have registered their wish to speak, regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the remit of the committee, may do so.  The deadline for registering is 5:00 pm on Tuesday 19 February 2013.

It was reported that there were no registrations to speak at the meeting under the council’s Public Participation Scheme.

As requested by the Committee, Group Leaders from City of York Council have been invited to attend this meeting.  This report suggests possible issues for discussion.

Group Leaders from City of York Council were in attendance for this item.  A report had been circulated which suggested possible issues for discussion.  The report also drew attention to the fourteenth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. 

Group Leaders were invited to identify any issues relating to monitoring standards of conduct and the committee’s arrangements for dealing with complaints that they would wish the committee to address.

Councillor Alexander stated that there were longstanding problems in respect of the political culture within the council.  Although attempts had been made to address this issue, the culture remained and the new Members of all parties had settled into the same culture.  This had resulted in complaints being lodged that were largely political, which caused unpleasantness and which wasted resources.  He suggested that the Committee made recommendations as to how this culture could be changed, for example considering whether it would be useful to bring in an external consultant to support this process.  The Monitoring Officer and the Joint Standards Committee also needed to be robust when dealing with vexatious attacks.  

Councillor Gillies stated that there were differences in the way some people viewed political attacks.  Nevertheless he would not wish to see personal attacks being made outside of the political arena.  He expressed concern that the powers of the Standards Committee had been reduced.  He stated that it was important that the committee did not waste time on insignificant issues although he acknowledged that there were differing perceptions as to what people would designate as a frivolous.  Nevertheless it was also important that people had the opportunity to make a complaint if they believed this to be necessary.

Councillor D’Agorne stated that he agreed that there had been some instances in the past when the procedures that had been followed were not appropriate in view of the nature of the complaint.  Most complaints seemed to have been political in nature.  Councillor D’Agorne stated that he regretted some of the changes that had been made to the standards regime.  It was important to avoid bureaucratic procedures when there were very few sanctions available to the committee.  The Monitoring Officer had a useful role to play and carried out this role well.  It was important to make the best of the situation and to promote good practice, for example through the use of model procedures.

The Monitoring Officer stated that although he had some concerns about the new standards arrangements, he did welcome the way in which complaints were now assessed.  The process now allowed for early and robust decision making.  He asked the Group Leaders about the role they would play in the new arrangements. Councillor Gillies suggested that Group Leaders could play a role in mediating or arbitrating on issues to see if they could be resolved at an early stage rather than escalating to a formal complaint.

The Independent Person asked about the arrangements that were in place in respect of Group Leaders’ meetings.  Councillor Alexander stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

This report asks the committee to adopt new procedures for dealing with complaints and new criteria for making decisions as to whether a complaint should be investigated.

Members considered a report that asked them to adopt new procedures for dealing with complaints and new criteria for making decisions as to whether a complaint should be investigated.  The procedures had been updated to reflect discussions that had taken place at previous meetings.

Members were asked to consider the issues raised in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report and identify any additional changes to the draft procedures which may be considered necessary.  Members noted that under the previous arrangements it had been the practice to establish sub committees so as to exclude City Councillors from the same political group as either a complainant or the subject Member.  It may be more difficult to do this now given the removal of Independent Members.   Members agreed that this should be an aspiration but, because of the difficulties in achieving this, it should not be a requirement.  Likewise it would be useful if the Chair or Vice-Chair were to chair sub-committee meetings but the committee agreed that, in order to provide flexibility, this should not be a requirement.  The important factor was to ensure that the Members were able to demonstrate their independence and impartiality when carrying out their work.

Consideration was given to suggested amendments to the wording of the Assessment Criteria for complaints, as put forward by the Independent Person.  The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the criteria were in accordance with the guidance issued by the Standards Board. 

RESOLVED:       (i)      That a statement be included within the

procedures stating that “Ordinarily a sub-committee will be chaired by the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Joint Standards Committee and comprise of other members selected to demonstrate their impartiality”

(ii)      That, subject to the inclusion of the above statement, the revised procedures and assessment criteria, as per Annexes A and B of the report, be adopted as the Committee’s arrangements for handling complaints.

REASON:           To ensure consistency in the judgements made about complaints.

The Monitoring Officer will give a verbal report in respect of complaints received.

The Monitoring Officer gave a verbal report in respect of complaints received.  He stated that there had been no new complaints lodged since the last meeting.  The complaint that had been referred to at the previous meeting had been investigated by an officer from North Yorkshire County Council.  Witnesses had been interviewed and the investigating officer’s report was now awaited.

RESOLVED:       That the update on complaints received be

                             noted.

REASON:           To ensure that the Committee is kept updated on complaints received.

This report provides Members with the opportunity to reflect on the introduction of the new Codes and identify any issues which the Committee may be able to address.

Members considered a report that provided them with the opportunity to reflect on the introduction of the new Codes and identify any issues which the Committee may be able to address.

It was noted that two internal training sessions had been held for City Councillors.  A question had been raised as to the new local requirement to register hospitality which was offered but not accepted.  The specific issue related to conferences.  Members received flyers containing invitations to free or discounted conferences on a fairly regular basis and generally did not respond to them.  The committee agreed that, in general, if a conference was open to all Members on commercial terms, there should not be a requirement to register the invitation.  If, however, a personal invitation was issued to a Member at rates that were more favourable than to other delegates, it would be appropriate for this to be registered.  It was agreed that, at a future meeting, further consideration would be given to guidance on hospitality.¹

Consideration was given to the types of circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the Monitoring Officer to grant dispensations.  Examples were given of the type of circumstances that could arise, for example in relation to Members’ own planning applications.

Clarification was sought as to whether the Independent Persons were subject to the Code of Conduct.  The Monitoring Officer confirmed that they were not subject to the Code but there was an expectation that they would comply with the standards that it set out.  If the committee felt it necessary, Independent Persons could be asked to sign a declaration on their appointment.

RESOLVED:       (i)      That the following guidance apply in

respect of the requirement to register offers of hospitality to the conferences referred to in paragraph 5 of the report... “In general, if a conference is open to all Members on commercial  terms, there is no requirement to register the invitation.  If, however, a personal invitation is issued to a Member at rates that are more favourable than to other delegates, it would be appropriate for this to be registered”. 

(ii)      That the Monitoring Officer be delegated

the power to grant dispensations enabling a Member to make representations to Council meetings in circumstances where a member of the public has identical rights.

(iii)     That the report be noted and a further similar report be included in the Committee’s work plan for the next Municipal Year.²

REASONS:         (i)      To clarify the expectations imposed on

                                      Members.

                             (ii)      To avoid any uncertainty as to Members’

                                      legal position.

                             (iii)     To allow Members to monitor the

implementation and impact of the new standards regime.

This report asks Members to refer a revised Planning Code of Good Practice for consultation with relevant Members and Officers.

Members considered a report that asked them to refer a revised Planning Code of Good Practice for consultation with relevant Members and Officers.

The Monitoring Officer stated that the Code of Good Practice had been substantially rewritten and was based on the Local Government Association and ACSeS model. 

Members were asked to consider whether to identify any changes that they would like to see to the draft Planning Code. The Monitoring Officer stated that he was satisfied that the draft code was an accurate reflection of the current legal position.

Members stated that there was a need to amend paragraph 3.2 to read “hospitality valued at £50 or more”.

RESOLVED:       That the Monitoring Officer be requested to consult with relevant Members and Officers on the draft Code and report the outcome of that consultation to the Committee.¹

REASON:           To ensure that any new Code is fit for purpose.

Members are asked to review the committee’s work plan.

Consideration was given to the committee’s work plan.

It was agreed that it would be useful to invite some Chairs of parish councils to attend the next meeting.  It was suggested that this be done through the Yorkshire Local Councils Association.

Members also discussed strategies as to how to recruit additional independent persons.  It was noted that the Audit and Governance Committee was also seeking to appoint an independent person and hence there was the possibility of working jointly to raise awareness of these vacancies.   It was suggested that the local press be approached regarding the possibility of an article being included on the appointment of the Mr Laverick.  Members agreed that, in addition to promoting the positions in the media, contact be made with the following organisations to raise awareness of the vacancies:

·        Other local authorities

·        Rotary Clubs

·        Magistrates Supplemental List

Members were asked to contact the Monitoring Officer with any further suggestions regarding recruitment of the independent persons.

The following additions to the work plan were agreed:

·        Invite representatives from parish councils to attend the next meeting (as per minute 25).

·        Ethical Standards (as per minute 25)

·        Update on the recruitment of additional independent persons

·        Review of Code of Conduct (as per minute 28)

·        Guidance on hospitality (as per minute 28)

·        Update on Consultation re revised Planning Code of Good Practice (as per minute 29)

RESOLVED:       That, subject to the inclusion of the items detailed above, the committee’s work plan be approved.

REASON:           To ensure that the committee has a planned programme of work in place.