Issue - meetings

(Assistant Director of Governance and Performance Management) To consider the attached report concerning proposals for revisions to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct which have been recently been considered by the Standards Committee and approved.

The Working Group are asked to consider the matter and recommend to Council accordingly.

The Working Group received the original Standards Committee report concerning Revisions to the Code of Member Conduct from the Assistant Director (Governance and Performance Management).

It was advised that this revised Code needed approval at Council as soon as possible, therefore it was suggested by officers that amendments made at this meeting could be discussed informally with the Chairman of the Standards Committee for approval without the need to wait for the next committee meeting. However although officers would attempt this there was no guarantee of approval.

In addition Members requested that Paragraph 11.2 Public Perception, “pre-determined” should replace “prejudice.”

RESOLVED:

That the revisions to the Code of Member Conduct be re-submitted to the Standards Committee at the earliest opportunity for approval.

(Monitoring Officer) To consider the attached report concerning proposals for revisions to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct (STD-001-2015/16).

The Deputy Monitoring Officer presented a report on proposed revisions to the Code of Member Conduct.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer stated that, as part of the full review of the Council’s Constitution, Officers had been considering whether the Member Code of Conduct required any amendment. It was noted that here had been no recent review in the light of operational experience, the Government had published a further report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and there had been a recommendation from a recent Standards Case proposing that the treatment of non-pecuniary interests be revised. Two areas in particular had been highlighted for review:

            (i)         dealing with non-pecuniary interests (as stated above); and

            (ii)        revisions to the Nolan Principles.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer reported that the current Code of Conduct made no mention of pre-determination for non-pecuniary interests. A later version of the Model Code produced by the Public Legal Partnership had the following provision:

“Public Perception

If you have an interest which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement in the public interest, and you are present at a meeting of the Authority at which such business is to be considered or is being considered, you must:

(i)         disclose the existence and nature of the interest; and

            (ii)        withdraw from the room or chamber where the meeting considering             the business is being held.”

It was proposed that this wording be included in the revised Code of Conduct to give guidance on non-pecuniary interests, and deal with the subjective assessment each Councillor had to make on items where accusations of pre-determination could be made against them.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Deputy Monitoring Officer affirmed that the Planning Protocol gave advice to ‘Dual Hatted’ Councillors; the Planning Protocol was also being reviewed and would be appended to the Member Code of Conduct, along with the Guidance on Gifts and Hospitality. Pre-Disposition or Pre-Determination was now included as part of the training for Councillors (District and Local) on the Planning Protocol.

Cllr Surtees stated that ‘Dual Hatted’ Councillors were both a District and Local Councillor at all times and, when dealing with planning applications, the vast majority of such Councillors usually made a statement at Local Council meetings reserving the right to make a final decision on the application at a later date. Local Cllr Barber added that this was the modus operandi at Epping Upland Parish Council.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that it was incumbent on the Councillor to put themselves in the position of a member of the public with reasonable knowledge when assessing whether they were possibly pre-determined. The Monitoring Officer reiterated that any Councillor, Local or District, could and should seek advice if they were unsure about their position for a particular issue.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised the Committee that it was not necessary for District Councillors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17