Agenda and draft minutes

To elect a Chair of the Standards Sub-Committee for the Civic Year 2022/23.

Councillor Studdert-Kennedy was nominated for the position of Chair of the Standards Sub-Committee

RESOLVED That Councillor Nigel Studdert-Kennedy be elected Chair of the Standards Sub-Committee for the Civic Year 2022-23.

To elect a Vice-Chair of the Standards Sub-Committee for the Civic Year 2022/23.

Councillor Pearcy was nominated for the position of Vice Chair of the Standards Sub-Committee

RESOLVED That Councillor Martin Pearcy be elected Vice Chair of the Standards Sub-Committee for the Civic Year 2022-23.

To receive apologies of absence.

There were none.

To receive declarations of interest.

There were none.

The Sub-Committee is asked to adopt the Hearings Procedures set out in Appendix A.

Hearings procedure

The Monitoring Officer introduced the procedure to be adopted by the Sub-Committee when it held hearings, he highlighted the proposal for a pre-hearing process on Page 5 and the proposed procedure for the hearing itself.

In response to the Independent Person the Monitoring Officer confirmed that there were three independent persons however she had been the nominee for that particular hearing.

Councillor Pearson advised that the standards hearings had not been a public meeting in the past and raised concerns whether holding the meeting would be seen to be a sanction before a Member was found guilty. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the meeting would need to be held in public however exempt sessions could be held where appropriate. Therefore reports in some cases could be redacted when it is deemed likely that the hearing may be held in private as an exempt session. He also confirmed that if the Sub-Committee was held in public then Members would have the opportunity to clear their name in a public setting.

In response to Councillor Pearson the Monitoring Officer advised that the Investigating Officer was not a position held by the Monitoring Officer and had previously been appointed to an Officer from the Counter Fraud Unit and that the position could be offered to someone from Stroud District Council or it could be outsourced. He also confirmed that the Investigating Officer position was appointed by the Monitoring Officer on an adhoc basis and that this was included in the procedure for complaints.

Members discussed the use of the word ‘reasonable’ in paragraph 2 and it was confirmed that reasonableness would be a judgement of the Sub-Committee.

Councillor Pearcy asked whether they could request that the Investigating Officers report included a timeline of events regarding the investigation and asked who set the scope of the report. The Monitoring Officer advised that they wouldn’t usually seek to constrain the Investigating Officer and that a timeline would normally be included. Councillor Studdert-Kennedy advised that it would be difficult to restrict the scope as the Investigating Officer would be using the Code of Conduct as their basis for the investigation. Councillor Pearcy asked that the Monitoring Officer requests that the Investigating Officer includes a timeline within their reports where necessary.

The Monitoring Officer introduced the detailed procedure for conducting hearings and drew Members attention to paragraph 9 and the views of the Independent Person. The Independent Person advised that there preference would be to hear other views in private before providing their view. The Monitoring Officer advised that paragraph 9 was inline with the guidance from the Local Government Association. The Chair echoed comments made by the Independent Person and advised that his preference would be for the panel to discuss in private before the Chair provides the Independent Persons opinion in summation. Councillor Pearcy, Pearson and Bullock also echoed the views of the Chair and Independent Person. The Monitoring Officer suggested that the first sentence of Paragraph 9 should be removed to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item SSC.005