Issue - meetings

That the Committee reviewed the cases summarised in the appendix to this

report, and identified any issues or themes which it felt needed to be raised

with all councillors.

            In presenting the report the Monitoring Officer confirmed the report covered the period to the 10 August and findings published since then would be included in the next report. The Ombudsman now had a searchable database of decisions on its website rather than publishing a periodical report. The website was useful for research purposes but was a little less readable when preparing the cases for Members. The Monitoring Officer had extracted and attached all issues which relating to the Code, with eight cases attached with summary findings. The cases were wide ranging and sensitive to or guided by the facts of each case. It did not appear that themes could be identified. However, the Monitoring Officer did advise that, even in the absence of themes running through these cases, it might be possible that the Committee would identify messages that it thought were important for councillors.

            David Davies referred to page 33 the case at Llandovery Town Council and wondered how they arrived at the length of time for suspension. He asked if the Ombudsman provided any guidance on the length of time or was this for the Standards Committee to decide. In response the Monitoring Officer explained that there were no tariffs or sentencing guidelines similar to the criminal justice system. A huge amount of discretion sat with the Standards Committee and it could be difficult finding precedents for cases. The cases were wide ranging and vastly different and there was no body or organisation that sought to achieve a measure of harmony or unity of approach across Standards Committees. There was no way of moderating the decisions they made.

            The Chair understood that there was no clear theme running through these cases but asked if there was anything that the Monitoring Officer would consider as a good topic for training or changes when reviewing protocols. In response the Monitoring Officer was unsure saying the longer case was concerning a relationship between an officer and a member which had been dealt with in the last 5 years with clear rules applied. A number of the cases related to former members which was why there was a restriction with regard to the level of sanction or penalty imposed. He felt the cases were fairly commonplace, not unusual or surprising and considered that a member who had been sanctioned would understand why this was not acceptable under the Code.

The recommendation, was moved and seconded by Mark Morgan and Councillor Andrew Parkhurst

RESOLVED:

That the Committee reviewed the cases summarised in the appendix to this

report, and identified any issues or themes which it felt needed to be raised

with all councillors.