Visitors and members of the public who are unfamiliar with the building and procedures are advised that:

(a)      The fire alarm is a continuous loud ringing. In the event that a fire drill is planned during the meeting, the Chair will advise of this.

(b)      Exit routes from the chamber are located on each side of the room, one directly to a fire escape, the other to the stairs opposite the lifts.

(c)      In the event of the alarm sounding, leave the building via the nearest safe exit and gather at the assembly point on the far side of the car park. Do not leave the assembly point or re-enter the building until advised to do so. Do not use the lifts.

(d)      Anyone unable to use the stairs should make themselves known during this agenda item.

The Chair outlined the emergency evacuation procedure.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 April 2024 (Minute Nos. 831 - 835) and 15 May 2024 (Minute Nos. 37 – 38) as correct records.

The minutes of the meetings held on 16 April 2024 (Minutes Nos. 831 – 835) and 5 May 2024 (Minutes Nos. 37 -38) were taken as read, approved and signed by the Chair as correct records.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their families or friends.

The Chair will ask Members if they have any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) or disclosable non-pecuniary interests (DNPIs) to declare in respect of items on the agenda. Members with a DPI in an item must leave the room for that item and may not participate in the debate or vote. 

Aside from disclosable interests, where a fair-minded and informed observer would think there was a real possibility that a Member might be biased or predetermined on an item, the Member should declare this and leave the room while that item is considered.

Members who are in any doubt about interests, bias or predetermination should contact the monitoring officer for advice prior to the meeting.

No interests were declared.

Appendix I – Draft arrangements with member comments added 09.07.2024

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report which asked the committee to consider comments made by the Standards Committee on the draft code of conduct complaints arrangements, and determine what further steps should be taken.  He went through the comments made by Members, one-by-one, and responses to these are set out below:

·         Paragraph 1.1: Remove the word ‘co-opted’ from the last line – Members agreed.

·         Paragraph 2: The interpretation at the beginning was better than the previous policy – Members agreed.

·         Paragraph 3.2: Why was a substitute needed now but not previously? Members considered it was helpful to have a substitute.

·         Paragraph 4.1: Should information be provided on the methods to complain, and an explanation that all complaints would be referred to the Monitoring Officer? Any complaints in writing had met the test in law.

·         Complaint form: Could the process/form be made simpler? Members agreed the complaint form provided consistency in information provided on complaints.

·         Complainant form: Was the Equalities Monitoring Information form necessary? Members agreed to add ‘Completion of the form is optional’ and to consider updating the language to be consistent with other Council documents.

·         Procedure to complain was an improvement and much clearer: Members agreed.

·         Hearing Panel Procedure - Paragraph 2: Should be made clearer who chose the Chair. Members agreed to include a sentence so that members of the sub-committee were chosen in advance and then those Members would agree who would chair.

·         Paragraph 11.3 (c) – Should be made clearer where it would be reported to. Members agreed to take out ‘or Monitoring Officer’.

·         Paragraph 12.1 – Having the sanctions listed was an improvement.

There was some discussion around the lobbying of Government to carry out a review of the process and sanctions and it was agreed this would be discussed under the final Agenda item.

·         Paragraph 2.3 – Suggested that the complainant must highlight the areas or how they felt the Member had breached the Code of Conduct.  Members agreed with the Monitoring Officer’s suggestion that this paragraph considered the definition of a complainant, so the amendment could be discussed later in the document.

·         Paragraph 2.6 (a) - Asked whether the Standards hearing panel should decide the date of a complaint? Members agreed with the Monitoring Officer’s suggestion of considering the suggestion later in the document.

·         Paragraph 2.7 – said the Investigating Officer should be external to the Council from a pool of Council-approved investigators.  After a long discussion on this, with Members having differing views, Members agreed to revisit this suggestion.

·         Paragraph 2.8 – asked whether it was necessary to keep the definition.  Members agreed to take this out.

·         Suggested an additional paragraph at 3.3 in respect of the keeping of notes and dates, as set out in the published appendix. During the discussion on this, the Independent Person advised that she was happy for this addition and Members agreed to include it.

·         Paragraph 4.1 (b) – a suggestion, as set out in the appendix, for a verbal complaint to be transcribed was agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

The Chair brought forward item 7 – Member Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Check proposal.

The Community Services Manager introduced the report which discussed proposals to introduce DBS checks for Members following a request from the Housing and Health Committee on 5 March 2024. She said that whilst there was no statutory requirement for DBS checks for Members, there was legislation that promoted high standards of conduct for elected Members and grounds for disqualification. The Community Services Manager highlighted the risks to the public and to the reputation of the Council should a Member be elected whilst having an unknown criminal conviction and explained that whilst there were different levels of  DBS checks, it was appropriate for elected Members to receive a voluntary, basic DBS check.  She referred to the recommendations in the report and steps suggested should there be a conviction.

A Member asked why the suggested term was two years and not every term?  The Community Services Manager said research had shown other authorities carried out checks at different rates and it was for Members to decide the frequency.

Other comments included:

·         Pleased to see the subject being taken seriously;

·         Councillors were trusted members of the community and it was important for checks to be carried out;

·         a DBS check would re-affirm that Councillors could be trusted;

·         there should be an expectation that if any incidents occurred to a Councillor within their term of office, they would volunteer to carry out an additional DBS check;

·         it was a Councillor’s responsibility to protect themselves and their community; and

·         should Members appointed to the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) have an enhanced DBS check?.

The Head of Housing and Communities advised that should a Member have a DBS check as part of their work or similar, the DBS check could be considered to be acceptable on a case by case basis.  She explained it was not necessary for Members who sat on the CSP to have an enhanced DBS check as they should treat the confidential information in the same way as any other confidential information they received.  The Chief Executive added that if the Police had any concerns over any Member that sat on the CSP, they would raise their concerns with her who in turn would speak to the relevant Group Leader. In the discussion that followed, a Member highlighted that some Members were not in Groups. The Chief Executive said the subject Member would be spoken to directly and would be supported in the same way.

There was some discussion around what action could be taken if a conviction was revealed. The Head of Housing and Communities said there were limitations, but highlighted that it could be a deterrent to those with a conviction to stand and whilst DBS checks were not perfect, it was another tool to safeguard residents and sent out the message that the Council took the matter seriously.  The Chief Executive added that by having knowledge, risk assessments could be put in place to protect the public, staff and other Members as well as to the subject Member.  A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

This item was withdrawn from the Agenda and it was agreed to discuss at the next Standards Committee meeting in September 2024.

The KALC representative advised that he had not been invited to attend the recent Standards training that took place. The Chief Executive advised that the training had been recorded and the session would be circulated. A Member suggested that the Standards training be circulated to all Parish Councils.

A Member considered that some of the Planning Training sessions be brought forward, drawing attention to the importance of the sessions on conditions and design codes.

POST MEETING NOTE:  The Standards Training was circulated to the KALC representative who confirmed receipt.

The Chief Executive introduced the report which set out proposed changes to hearings following a complaint about the hearing held on 27 November 2023, and in response to the subsequent investigations.  She highlighted the recommendations of the investigations, carried out by an independent investigator as set out at 2.2.1 – 2.25  in the report.

A Member raised an issue at 2.2.3 that the Monitoring Officer should not be the investigating officer and Members agreed the wording should be updated.

Councillor Harrison proposed that after each Standards Committee, the chair wrote to the relevant Government Minister seeking a review on the sanctions available to authorities when carrying out a Standards Hearing.  This was seconded by Councillor Charlie Miller and on being put to the vote, agreed by Members.

Resolved:

(1)  That the changes to Standards Hearing as set out at 2.21 to 2.25 of the report (as amended), and listed below be agreed:

2.2.1   The Council should make clear on the website the process for making complaints against Councillors;

2.2.2  Ensure there are clear and comprehensive procedures notes for undertaking a hearing;

2.2.3 That the Monitoring Officers ensure they are not sitting on the top table with the Members/Legal representative/Chief Executive, but somewhere where there can be no perception of influence;

2.2.4 Provide formal training for the Members of Standards Committee in undertaking hearings;

2.2.5 Not allowing Members to sit on hearings until the training had been fully completed.

(2) After each Standards Committee, the chair wrote to the relevant Government Minister seeking a review on the sanctions available to authorities when carrying out a Standards Hearing.