Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mughal and Williams, as well as from the Chair, Irene Francis.  Roger Lovegrove, the Vice-Chair of the Committee, took the Chair for the meeting.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business.

There was no such business.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

There were no such declarations.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 8^th October 2007.

Under matters arising, Members noted that they were awaiting a written note from the Monitoring Officer concerning the new arrangments for the Members’ Code of Conduct.  The Monitoring Officer agreed to supply Members with the requested note.

RESOLVED:

1. That the Monitoring Officer write to Members concerning the new arrangements for the Members’ Code of Conduct.

2. That the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 7^th February 2008 be confirmed and signed.

The Committee was informed of the resignation of Nicolas Weber (independent Member) with immediate effect.

The Committee expressed its congratulations to John Suddaby for being confirmed to the post of Monitoring Officer.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee write to Nicolas Weber thanking him for his work for the committee.

To consider any referrals received from the Standards Board for England.

The Monitoring Officer stated that he had not received any referrals to the Standards Board for England in the period since the previous meeting.

Two letters had been received from the Standards Board informing him of complaints about two separate Members; the Board had elected not to refer these complaints onwards.  The committee noted that Members who were the subject of a complaint were made aware of the complaint after it had been considered by the Standards Board.

To consider the outcomes of recently held Haringey Council Determination Hearings.

There had been no determination hearings.

(Report of the Monitoring Officer)  To repotr on the recently published Government consultation paper and seek the Standards Committee’s agreement to an appropriate response to be sent by the deadline of 15 February 2008.

The committee discussed the Monitoring Officer’s draft response to the Government Consultation Paper on a new Ethical Governance Scheme for local authorities.  Following discussion amongst the committee, the following response from Haringey was agreed:

Q1. Does our proposal to prohibit a member who has been involved in a decision on the assessment of an allegation from reviewing any subsequent request to review that decision to take no action (but for such a member not to be prohibited necessarily from taking part in any subsequent determination hearing), provide an appropriate balance between the need to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure a proportionate approach? Would a requirement to perform the functions of initial assessment, review of a decision to take no action, and subsequent hearing, by sub-committees be workable?

A 1.    We are of the view that a member of the Standards Committee should not be involved in more than one stage of the process, whether that be the initial assessment, the review or the hearing. The argument for this is based on the importance of proceedings being seen to be fair. A member against whom an allegation has been made is likely to feel unfairly prejudiced if members were to conduct a hearing on a matter where those same members had previously seen the original allegation, with no counter-evidence, and taken a decision that it appeared to show a breach of the Code of Conduct and merited investigation. Our proposal would require the Standards Committee to arrange for each separate stage of the local determination procedure – initial sieve, review and determination hearing – to be conducted by a separate sub-committee.

Q2. Where an allegation is made to more than one standards committee, is it appropriate for decisions on which standards committee should deal with it to be a matter for agreement between standards committees? Do you agree that it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide for any adjudication role for the Standards Board?

A2.       We consider that It must be for the separate authorities to decide whether an individual matter would be appropriate for joint treatment in any respect. However, it would be helpful if the Standards Board for England could be asked to facilitate joint treatment where authorities are unable to reach agreement between themselves.

Q3. Are you content with our proposal that the timescale for making initial decisions should be a matter for guidance by the Standards Board, rather than for the imposition of a statutory time limit?

A3.       We would favour a statutory timescale being in place

Q4. Do you agree that the sort of circumstances we have identified would justify a standards committee being relieved of the obligation to provide a summary of the allegation at the time the initial assessment is made? Are there any other circumstances which you think would also justify the withholding of information? Do you agree that in a case where the summary has been withheld the obligation to provide it should arise at the point where the monitoring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

(Report of the Monitoring Officer)  To update the Committee with the progress being made to recruit to the vacancy for an Independent Member on that Committee, and to agreee an appointment sub-committee to conduct the shortlisting and interview.

The committee received a report outlining progress made to date in the recruitment of a new independent Member of the committee.  It was noted that initial response to the advert was positive.

It was agreed that the panel for the shortlisting and interview should be comprised of two independent Members and two Councillors (one from each political group).  It was decided that the Chair of the committee would have the casting vote.

RESOLVED:

1. The committee noted the progress thus far on the recruitment of an independent Member.

2. That the panel be comprised of two independent Members and two Councillors, with the Chair having the casting vote.

There were no such items.

The Monitoring Officer agreed to investigate training options for the new municipal year, including the use of external providers.

RESOLVED:

That the Monitoring Officer investigate training options for 2008-09 and report back to the committee.

Next meeting to be held on Thursday 10^th April 2008 at 7:30pm.

The next meeting to be held on Thursday 10^th April 2008 at 7:30pm.