Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chairman informed the Committee that Councillor R. Lloyd had made an application for dispensation to the Standards Committee in Item 4 of the Agenda.

The Chairman informed the Committee that Councillor R. Lloyd had made an application for dispensation to the Standards Committee in Item 4 of the Agenda.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2012.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2012 were confirmed as a correct record.

Matters arising

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services confirmed that the Annual Report had now been sent out.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services confirmed that the first training session had been held and that he would speak to other county councils at the ACES meeting on 5 October 2012 to see if they wanted a joint training session with Peter Keith Lucas.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2012 were confirmed as a correct record.

That Councillor R. Lloyd to be granted dispensation by the Standards Committee to write to Council officers about planning application 049848 and to speak for 5 minutes at any subsequent Planning Committee,  he would then have to withdraw from the meeting and play no part in the voting process.

The Chair introduced item 4 on the Agenda which related to an application for dispensation by Councillor R. Lloyd.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that Councillor Lloyd be allowed to state his case, receive advice and would then be requested to leave the room whilst the matter was discussed.

Councillor R. Lloyd explained that he wished to be able to speak and vote at Planning Committee about an application within his ward for a new Scout Headquarters.  He explained that he is a town councillor and county councillor for Saltney and that the town council had made the application on behalf of the Scouts to save in planning fees.  He explained that he was not a member of the Scout Association.

Councillor H. J. McGuill asked if the application had been a controversial decision for the town council.  Councillor Lloyd replied that it had been a unanimous decision.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that currently there was no suggestion that the application would have to go to planning committee.  He advised that Councillor R. Lloyd should be allowed to correspond with the council on the application but that all communications on this matter be conducted in written format for openness.  He added that the planning process was impartial and that he would not advise that Cllr Lloyd be permitted to vote on the application, in order to maintain public confidence.  In light of this advice Cllr Lloyd withdrew his application for permission to remain in the room and vote on the application.

The Democracy and Governance Manager advised that as a member of the public, Councillor R. Lloyd could speak for 3 minutes at the meeting about the application and then leave the room.  He advised that a dispensation could be made to allow him to speak for 5 minutes as a county council member, then withdraw and play no part in the voting process.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services also advised Councillor R. Lloyd that if granted the dispensation then he would need to declare it each time he wrote to the Council, or spoke about the matter in a Council Meeting.

Councillor R. Lloyd, at this point withdrew his request to vote and left the room so that the Committee could consider his request.

The Committee debated the matter and considered Councillor R. Lloyds’s request.

Councillor R. Lloyd was asked to return to the Committee room to hear the decision.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor R. Lloyd to be granted dispensation by the Standards Committee to write to Council officers about planning application 049848 and to speak for 5 minutes at any subsequent Planning Committee,  he would then have to withdraw from the meeting and play no part in the voting process.

For the Committee to consider topics to be included on the attached draft Forward Work Programme.

That the Forward Work Programme be agreed.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services introduced the Forward Work Programme based on suggestions from the previous meeting and asked for any further items for November, December and January meetings.  No additional items were suggested.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that he would write a report on attendance numbers at the training sessions.

RESOLVED:

That the Forward Work Programme be agreed.

The meeting commenced at 6.30 p.m. and ended at 7.55p.m.

There were no members of the public or press in attendance.

From 6.30pm the Committee will be joined by representatives of Town and Community Councils to discuss the following report:-

CODE OF CONDUCT AND TREATING OTHERS WITH RESPECT

• Letter dated 17 September, 2012 from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales plus revised guidance following the ‘Calver’ Case.

• Open discussion about how the Standards Committee can help Town and Community Councils to promote high standards of ethical behaviour.

That representations be made to the Ombudsman outlining the concerns of the Committee.

The Chairman welcomed representatives of Town and Community Councils to discuss the following report:-

CODE OF CONDUCT AND TREATING OTHERS WITH RESPECT

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services informed Committee that he had recently received revised guidance from the Ombudsman relating to the code of conduct and treating others with respect.  He explained the background to the case.  A town councillor, found to be in breach of the code of conduct, took the Adjudication Panel for Wales to the High Court by way of Judicial Review and was successful.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services explained that while the court found that rude comments had been made about fellow Councillors, as the majority of the comments referred to the way the council was run, they were permissible under his rights to political expression. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services voiced his disappointment at the decision and said that revised guidance by the Ombudsman, which was based upon the case, appeared to give the right to Councillors to be rude to other Councillors, council officers and clerks.  He added that the Welsh Local Government Association may be seeking to challenge this decision.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services cited a case in England whereby a councillor, alleged to have displayed rude behaviour was successfully found to be in breach of the code of conduct.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that he would locate the article about the English councillor and circulate it. He added that this case could be brought to the attention of the ombudsman should any future cases emerge.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services invited questions from those present.

Councillor H.J. McGuill commented that the revised guidance meant that councillors no longer had to treat councillors or council officers with respect.  She was concerned that council meetings would subsequently be difficult to manage.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that a County Council or Town and Community council’s rules of debate would still apply and that Chairs could exclude committee members from a meeting, but not find them in breach of the Code of Conduct.  Councillor McGuill asked if this meant a councillor had the freedom to insult another councillor.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services explained that the insult would have to be based around political expression, such as a criticism of a service, policy or aspect of administration which called into question the competency of a portfolio holder in cabinet, councillor or officer.

Mr M. Roberts said that this decision would be a backwards step which could harm the culture of respect which had been established.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services replied that it would be difficult to create a voluntary agreement which outlined the higher standards of conduct as such a document might also risk being struck down by the courts .  However, he added that the Standard Orders could explain more explicitly the types of conduct likely to lead to eviction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.