The Monitoring Officer submitted a report setting out the background to the hearing.  It was noted that:-

·  On 19 September 2011 the Standards (Assessment) Sub-Committee considered complaints by Mr Geoff Licence and Mrs Wendy Licence concerning the alleged conduct of Mr Chris Dyke formerly of Bearsted Parish Council.  The decision of the Sub-Committee was to refer the complaints for investigation.

·  On 29 February 2012 the Standards (Consideration) Sub-Committee considered the Investigating Officer’s report.  Although the Investigating Officer found that there had been no breach of the Code of Conduct by Mr Dyke, the Sub-Committee referred the matter to a hearing in relation to the allegations that Mr Dyke had failed to treat others with respect (paragraph 3(1) of the Code); compromised the impartiality of those who work for the authority (paragraph 3(2)(d) of the Code); and brought his office or authority into disrepute (paragraph 5 of the Code).  The Sub-Committee agreed with all of the other findings of no breach.

·  Following the issue of the Decision Notices, Mr Dyke resigned from the Parish Council on 19 March 2012.

·  Mr Dyke had not responded to requests to complete the hearing documentation setting out which parts of the Investigating Officer’s report he agreed and disagreed with.  He had not indicated whether he intended to attend the hearing.  However, he had advised the Borough Council’s Chief Executive that he had decided not to be involved in the hearing process, and had requested that the hearing be cancelled whilst investigations were carried out into alleged leaks of the Investigating Officer’s report(s) which he claimed would prejudice the hearing process.  The Monitoring Officer had discussed this request with the Chairman, and it was considered that there was no need to postpone the hearing.

The Chairman asked the Sub-Committee if it wished to proceed in Mr Dyke’s absence.

RESOLVED:  That the hearing should proceed in Mr Dyke’s absence.

The Hearing

It was noted that the complaints could be summarised as follows:-

That, whilst in the position of Parish Council Chairman, former Councillor Dyke asked Mrs Licence, in her capacity as relief Parish Clerk, to deal with the appointment process of the Parish Handyman, as one of the candidates was married to the Parish Clerk.  He then bypassed Mrs Licence and continued to deal with the Parish Clerk thus compromising her impartiality.  He failed to meet Mrs Licence to consider her allegations about the process, butthen summoned her to a meeting with him, refusing to tell her what it was about.  He also made comments at the Parish Council’s Finance and General Purposes Committeeon 19 July 2011 in public contrary to Standing Orders which implied wrongdoing by Mrs Licence.

The Investigating Officer set out the findings of fact contained in his reports in so far as they related to Mr Dyke.  He said that he had nothing to add as the facts were not disputed.

The Sub-Committee considered the Investigating Officer’s reports and oral evidence from the complainants and Parish Councillors Ash and

Mrs Marshall.

The Sub-Committee then agreed to exclude the public pursuant to paragraph 7C of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, having applied the Public Interest Test, in order that it could deliberate and reach its conclusions in private as to whether there had been a breach or breaches of the Code of Conduct by Mr Dyke and, if so, whether to impose the sanction of censure.

The Sub-Committee then left the room accompanied by the Monitoring Officer, the Deputy Monitoring Officer and the Committee Administrator.

Upon the return of the Sub-Committee, the Chairman announced that:-

·  The Sub-Committee agreed with the findings of fact contained in the Investigating Officer’s reports.

·  The Sub-Committee found that former Councillor Dyke had failed to comply with paragraphs 3(1), 3(2)(d) and 5 of the Code of Conduct in that he did not treat Mrs Licence with respect by refusing to meet her to discuss her allegations about the process followed in the appointment of the Handyman, by summoning her to a meeting without telling her what it was to be about, and by making public comments at the Parish Council’s Finance and General Purposes Committee on 19 July 2011 which implied wrongdoing by Mrs Licence, when the item was not on the agenda and should not have been discussed; he compromised the impartiality of the Parish Clerk; and conducted himself in a manner which would reasonably be regarded as bringing his office as Chairman of the Parish Council and the Parish Council itself into disrepute by involving her in the appointment of the Parish Handyman when her husband was one of the candidates.

The Investigating Officer advised the Sub-Committee on the sanctions available.  It was noted that since Mr Dyke was no longer a Parish Councillor, the only sanction available was censure.

The Chairman announced that the Sub-Committee was of the view that the breaches of the Code of Conduct warranted a censure.

After the decisions relating to the allegations of misconduct by former Councillor Dyke were announced, the Chairman made the following statement:-

1.  There is a need, as Bearsted Parish Council has already been advised, for the Parish Council to carry out a full review of its recruitment procedures.

2.  The Sub Committee recommends that the Clerk should undergo further training in her role.

3.  There appears to be a need for Bearsted Parish Council to undertake an internal investigation into possible failures relating to the appointment of the Handyman.

4.  The Sub-Committee has been advised that KALC has put in one of its experts to help the Parish Council, and trusts that this will include the Clerk when she returns to work.

5.  Although the existing Code of Conduct will be replaced by a new Code under the provisions of the Localism Act, Parish Councils will still be answerable to that Code.  Also, although the present format of the Standards Committee will be abolished, and roles such as mine done away with, there will still be the ability for members of the public to complain about breaches to the Monitoring Officer, and an Independent Person will give advice on those breaches.  The decision, however, on what sanctions to take against a Parish Councillor who has been found to breach the Code will be left with the Parish Council.

6.  As a Standards Committee we have received far too many complaints relating to this one Parish Council, and the cost of two investigations has been very high, all of which has to come out of the Borough Council’s funds.  I believe that the Parish Council should be responsible for such costs, but this is not the case.  I would hope that Members of Bearsted Parish Council quite simply get their act together, stop the infighting, and get on with the role that they are there for, to look after the interests of the Parish as a whole.  I would stress that although the costs of investigating complaints is high, this should not put people off making complaints, especially in cases such as these, where the complaints have been upheld.