Venue: By Zoom. View directions
Contact: Carol Johnson 01597 826206
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies To receive apologies for absence. Minutes: There were no apologies for absence.
|
|
Declarations of interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda. Minutes: Stephan Hays declared a personal interest as he was aware, in a professional capacity, of the former councillor who was the subject of the complaint. He also declared a personal interest as he knew of some individuals referred to in some of the correspondence contained in the Ombudsman’s report.
County Councillor I McIntosh declared a personal interest as he knew of the former councillor. County Councillor L Rijnenberg declared a personal interest as he knew of the former councillor.
As none of the above interests were prejudicial the members could participate in the meeting. |
|
Confidential item The Monitoring Officer has determined that Category 8 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules applies to the following report. His view on the public interest test (having taken account of the provisions of Rule 11.8 of the Council’s Access to Information Rules) was that to make this information public would disclose information relating to a particular individual and would allow information to enter the public domain before that individual has had an opportunity to make representations in respect of it.
These factors in his view outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information at this stage.
Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.
Minutes: RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 8 of The Council’s Access to Information Rules. |
|
Preliminary hearing - 2/CC/20 To consider the report. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair advised that the meeting was now a preliminary hearing to consider how to manage the final hearing. The Monitoring Officer advised that the Committee should consider the medical evidence received and also the request from the former councillor and his legal Representative for an adjournment. The Monitoring Officer referred the Committee to 18.4.12 of the adopted procedures, which states the following in respect of illness or incapacity “If the Standards Committee is satisfied, based upon the medical evidence supplied, that any party is unable, through physical or mental sickness or impairment, to attend the hearing and that the party’s inability is likely to continue for a long time, the Standards Committee may make such arrangements as may appear best suited, in all the circumstances of the case, for disposing fairly of the matter, which may include adjourning the hearing to a suitable date or proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the party if appropriate to do so in the opinion of the Standards Committee.”
The Ombudsman’s Representative advised that their report was published in February 2022 and the former councillor was legally represented throughout the investigation. The Standards Committee held an initial meeting in July 2022 and had agreed to progress to a hearing. The Ombudsman’s opinion was that the former councillor has had ample opportunity to prepare for this meeting and to make relevant submissions. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s opinion was that an adjournment was not required.
The Committee noted that as this was a preliminary meeting, if the Committee was minded to proceed, the former councillor would have an opportunity to make representations before a final hearing. It was moved and duly seconded to continue with the meeting.
Resolved that the meeting should continue.
The Ombudsman’s Representative advised that the former councillor was legally represented throughout the investigation and the report was published in February 2022. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the evidence submitted since this date is not relevant to the report. The former councillor has advised that he disagrees with the whole report however there are 14 undisputed facts in the report. The former councillor has had ample opportunity to provide information on the disputed facts. The recent information and details of witnesses provided is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, irrelevant and not material. The Ombudsman’s Representative advised that the former councillor may wish to call character witnesses, but the Committee would need to consider this.
The Ombudsman’s Representative noted the medical evidence and recent health issues and advised that the proportionate way forward would be for the Committee to consider written evidence. He also advised that the complainants behaviour and actions are irrelevant.
In response to a question the Ombudsman’s Representative advised that it was still appropriate to continue to consider the case as the former councillor continues to be town councillor. The Committee, if it holds a hearing, has two actions available to it; to determine that no action is required or to agree a written censure. The Ombudsman considers ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |