Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document
Meeting of the Council held on 12/12/2006
Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee 6th November 2006
Standards 11
06.11.06
WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE –
6TH NOVEMBER 2006
SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL MEETING – 12TH DECEMBER 2006
(To be read in conjunction with the Agenda for the Meeting)
*
Mr F N J Davies (Chairman)
*
Mr A Rayner
Mr L C Bate (Vice-Chairman)
*
Mr C C E Slyfield
Capt P G Burden
*
Mr P Scattergood
*
Mr M R Goodridge
*
Mr R C Terry
Miss K E Heenan
*
Mr D F Wheatley
*
Dr M-G Lane
*Present
10.
MINUTES
(Agenda Item 1)
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 19th July 2006 were confirmed and signed.
11.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
(Agenda Item 2)
Apologies for absence were received from Mr L C Bate and Miss K E Heenan.
12.
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
(Agenda Item 3)
Mr P Scattergood declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 7, Appendix C, Dispensations, as he was a Member of Bramley Parish Council, the subject of this report.
PART I – RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
There are no matters falling within this category.
PARTS II AND III – MATTERS OF REPORT
Background Papers
The background papers relating to the following reports in Parts II and III are as specified in the Agenda for the meeting of the Standards Committee.
Part II – Matters reported in detail for the information of the Council
13.
CHAIRMAN/MONITORING OFFICER UPDATE
(Agenda Item 5)
13.1
Monitoring Officer
.
The Committee received a written report from the Monitoring Officer updating Members on the work undertaken since its last meeting on 19th July 2006. The following matters were highlighted to the Committee:
(a) Staff had been advised about the Code of Conduct and Register of Gifts and Hospitality through the electronic bulletin board.
(b) In light of the increasing importance being attached to ethical governance, the Monitoring Officers had organised two Ethical Governance Training sessions for Members. These would take place on 22nd November and cover a range of ethical standards issues.
(c) A visit had been undertaken to sample the Surrey Police electronic training programme with the view of possibly introducing a similar service to Waverley. Mr Slyfield confirmed that the test was very easy to use and inexpensive. The Committee agreed that the Monitoring Officer should ask a representative to come to its next meeting and provide more information about how the test is carried out.
(d) The Council had considered the issue of declaring related party transactions at length on 17th October 2006. The Director of Finance had recently received a proposal from the Member who had declined to sign the original form, with additional wording for this condition. The District Auditor had considered this additional wording as acceptable. This wording was as follows:
“I declare that, as far as I am aware, I have no Related Party Transactions to declare”
As a result of this change, the Member concerned had signed the relevant forms.
The Committee discussed whether signing the Related Party Transaction should be a mandatory requirement when becoming a Councillor. The Monitoring Officer advised the Committee that it would be difficult to implement such a request but it was one of the options she would be discussing with the Director of Finance. The Committee agreed that it would accept the new wording as suggested but would await further information from the Monitoring Officer.
(e) There was an investigation being undertaken following a member’s concern regarding planning processes and conflicts of interests with reference to a particular planning application. This investigation was on-going, and because of the possibility that the Standards Committee may become involved, the Monitoring Officer did not wish to disclose any further information at this stage.
13.2
Chairman
The Committee received an oral update from the Chairman on the following matters:
(a) The Chairman had reported to the Council on the outcome of the decision in relation to Related Party Transactions and advised it that further information on this issue would be reported at a later stage.
(b) The Standards Board conference had taken place recently and there had been a large amount of discussion on the White Paper and its imminent arrival.
RESOLVED that
1. The Chairman’s oral report and Monitoring Officer’s written report be noted; and
2. A representative from Surrey Police be invited to the Committee to outline more information about the electronic training programme.
14.
ETHICAL STANDARDS AGENDA
(Agenda Item 6)
The Committee received a report outlining the work it had undertaken to date and on future areas of work to be included in its Rolling Programme. A work programme was tabled for discussion.
The report outlined some background about the Standards Committee, the Monitoring Officer’s Protocol and the Committee’s Terms of Reference. The Committee also received a breakdown of complaints regarding both Waverley and Town and Parish Councillors submitted to the Standards Board of England since 2002. Members noted that since this date, there was only two findings against Borough Councillors and that no further action was considered necessary in either of these cases. Members also noted that there would be a need to revisit the Council’s Planning Code because of the revised Code of Conduct for Members. Further training would be provided.
The Committee was advised that over the next 18 months there would be a number of changes impacting on its work. The new framework for corporate governance was expected in late autumn which would set an overall framework for good governance in Councillors. There would be two workshops taking place on 22nd November 2006 and Members of the Committee were welcome to attend. There was also the revised Code of Conduct expected in May 2007 that would need consideration by the Committee. The Monitoring Officer expressed concern that the revised code would be published too late for the 2007 local elections. Members agreed it was important that they had an opportunity to make a representation on the timing of the implementation of the Code.
The Committee was advised that as a result of the Graham Report on “Standards in Public Life” the responsibility for filtering complaints arising from breaches of the Code of Conduct would lie with the Monitoring Officer and the Standards Committee. The Standards Board for England would take a more strategic regional role. Consultation on this approach was expected late autumn when there would be an opportunity for the Committee to respond. These changes were expected to be effective from 2008.
RESOLVED that further representation be made to the relevant bodies on the timing of the implementation of the Revised Code of Conduct for Members.
15.
DISPENSATION – BRAMLEY PARISH COUNCIL
(Agenda Item 7)
An application for dispensation was received from Bramley Parish Council as set out in Appendix C to the agenda report. The Monitoring Officer reminded Members that the Committee was empowered to issue dispensations to Town and Parish Councils under Regulation 3 of the Relevant Authorities (Standards Committee) (Dispensations) Regulations 2002 in circumstances where over 50% of members entitled to participate in a meeting were prevented from doing so by prejudicial interests under the statutory Parish Code of Conduct.
The Committee considered the application, and agreed that it was appropriate to grant the dispensation, both for traffic issues and other general matters that were relevant to this site. However, Members requested the Monitoring Officer to make it clear to the Clerk of Bramley Parish Council that any Parish Member’s interest other than that of a general nature would not be covered by the dispensation.
RESOLVED that:
1. Dispensation be granted for members of Bramley Parish Council, under Regulation 3 of the Relevant Authorities (Standards Committee) (Dispensations) Regulations 2002, to consider traffic issues and other issues of a general nature in relation to the development of Dunsfold Park. Any interest above that of a general nature shall not be covered by this dispensation; and
2. The dispensation be reviewed in three months time.
Part III – Brief summaries of other matters dealt with
There were no matters falling within this category.
The meeting commenced at 5.30 p.m. and concluded at 7.27 pm.
Chairman
G:\bureau\comms\standards\2006-07\018 minutes.doc