Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 October 2014.

The Democratic Services Manager on behalf of Councillor Godfrey Townrow (Parish Council representative) who was absent, noted he had queried if the Member / Officer Protocol as mentioned in minute 5 had been circulated. She clarified due to an oversight that this had not happened, but would be actioned in the near future.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Godfrey Townrow (Parish Council representative).

In accordance with the Council’s current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests, Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also "prejudicial") in relation to any matter on the Agenda for this meeting.  A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2112 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct.  A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9. 

Members are reminded that they need to declare the fact that they are also a member of a County, Town or Parish Council as a Personal Interest.  As a result of the change made to the Code of Conduct by this Council at its meeting on 15^th May 2014, where you are also a member of Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council within South Somerset you must declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there is a financial benefit or gain or advantage to Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage of South Somerset District Council.  If you have a prejudicial interest you must comply with paragraphs  2.9(b) and 2.9(c) of the Code.

In the interests of complete transparency, Members of the County Council, who are not also members of this committee, are encouraged to declare any interests they may have in any matters being discussed even though they may not be under any obligation to do so under any relevant code of conduct.

There were no declarations of interest.

Mr K Robbins, addressed members and raised a number of historical, and in his opinion, ongoing issues regarding Tatworth and Forton Parish Council. He provided a little more detail to the situation and asked that a way forward to try and resolve the perceived problems be suggested. Due to the way previous complaints about parish councillors had been dealt with he had little confidence in the complaints process, and hence been reluctant to submit a formal complaint.

In response to comments made, the Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) noted he was not aware of any outstanding complaints, and that challenges regarding the treatment of old complaints could have been made to the Ombudsman. He commented that if there was any unanswered correspondence relating to complaints about the parish he would welcome a copy to have the opportunity to respond. It was noted that SSDC had no powers to interfere in the process of the parish council and was only able to deal with complaints about councillors in relation to the Code of Conduct.

The Chairman commented that when councillors were elected, they were elected to make decisions, some of which may not be liked or supported by the electorate. She explained the limitations of the Standards Committee and felt many of the issues that had been referred to were administrative. It was noted that officers would send the appropriate complaints form, guidance and procedure notes to Mr Robbins.

The Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) presented the report as detailed in the agenda, and noted the sanctions available were not significant and complainants were often looking for a sanction which was not available, such as disqualification. He highlighted the proposed changes to the process and guidance notes including:

·         To stress the Code only applies when a councillor acting in an official capacity.

·         Explanation of the stages to a complaint, and only in exceptional circumstances will there be a formal investigations.

·         Outcomes following investigation.

During a short discussion, the Assistant Director clarified points of detail as requested by members. It was suggested, and agreed, that two minor refinements be made to the guidance notes:

·         The paragraph about the document being available in another language etc should be moved to the front of the document.

·         Reference to a Panel occurs for the first time under the paragraph heading ‘Hearing Stage’, and reference should be made to it in relevant prior paragraphs/stages.

Members were content to recommend to Council that the revised arrangements, subject to the suggested refinements being made, be adopted as soon as possible.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

The Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) introduced the report which asked members to consider a protocol with the Police setting out the process to be followed, roles and responsibilities for dealing with complaints which suggest a member may be in breach of the legislation relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI).

It was noted the protocol proposed would provide a consistent approach across the county. He also advised that as the revised complaints process had been agreed at the previous agenda item, a slight amendment was required to the wording of the penultimate bullet point on the last page of the protocol, and a revised document was circulated with the suggested wording.

In response to comments raised during discussion, the Assistant Director clarified that:

·         A record of complaints was kept on file

·         Police would only deal with Monitoring Officers regarding DPI complaints.

Members were content to agree the Police Protocol, subject to the penultimate bullet point being amended as circulated at the meeting.

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) introduced the report as detailed in the agenda which updated members about the number of Register of Interests forms returned from town and parish councils. He reminded members that each parish could now adopt their own Code of Conduct and Register of Interests forms, and so there was no longer a standardised format. All forms were checked before being scanned and placed on the SSDC website, and due to the resources required to do this, it was hoped to refine the process in the future.

Members were pleased to note the report.

The Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) introduced the report which asked members to consider revisions to the members Register of Interests forms. He noted that based on the experiences, as mentioned at agenda item 7, the proposal was to revise the form to provide more explanation as to the information required. It was hoped by providing more clarity that the number of queries or lack of information would be reduced. He highlighted the changes and noted the explanatory text would also be promoted to our town and parish councils.

Members were content to approve the changes to the proposed revised SSDC Members register of Interests form.

The Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) provided the Committee with updates on:

·         Frictions within some parishes

o   often personality differences

o   no confidence in the Chairman

·         Parish and Town Councils need to check their insurance cover - in particular that it covers councillors when out and about conducting parish/town council business. A note would be sent to clerks.

The Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) reminded members that if there were other matters they would like discussed at a future meeting to make contact with one of the officers.

The Assistant Director in his role as Monitoring Officer introduced the report, noting that he had received three complaints under the Code of Conduct from September 2014 to mid-January 2016. He clarified that the councillors concerned were aware that the complaints were reported to the Standards Committee in confidential session as part of the complaints process.

There being no further discussion, members were content to note the report.