It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Ms Hunt (Independent Member) and Councillors Butcher, FitzGerald, Mrs Riden and Mrs Stockell.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Executive reviewing the Council’s performance in dealing with complaints during the period July to September 2011.

RESOLVED:  That the Council’s performance in responding to complaints during the period July to September 2011 and the action being taken to improve complaints handling be noted.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Democratic Services setting out the report and recommendations of the Joint Independent Remuneration Panel on Members’ Allowances for Maidstone Borough Council which had met to carry out a comprehensive review of the existing scheme of Members’ Allowances.

It was noted that the recommendation of the Panel that the Special Responsibility Allowance for the Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees be reduced to £4,665 per annum each would produce a saving in the Members’ Allowances budget of £3,498.  The recommendation of the Panel relating to car mileage allowances would not have a significant impact, and could be met within existing budgets.

In response to questions by Members and Co-opted Members, the representative of the Head of Democratic Services confirmed that:-

·  The table set out in the summary of Panel recommendations should have included reference to the allowances paid to the Chairman of the Licensing Act 2003 Committee and Co-opted Members of the Standards Committee, which it was proposed should remain the same.

·  Councillors and Co-opted Members would continue to be able to claim an additional 5p per mile if passengers travelled in their vehicles.

·  It was the Panel’s recommendation that allowances should continue to be index linked to the annual pay award to staff.

·  No change was proposed to Members’ Basic Allowance

·  The report of the Panel would be amended, prior to its submission to the Council, to take into account the clarification sought and issues raised by the Standards Committee.

·  A meeting of the Panel could be arranged to take place as and when required to consider any proposed changes to Special Responsibility Allowances arising from the introduction of new arrangements to comply with the provisions of the Localism Act relating to the ethical standards regime.

RESOLVED to RECOMMEND to the COUNCIL:  That the recommendations of the Joint Independent Remuneration Panel on Members’ Allowances for Maidstone Borough Council, as set out in the amended version of the Panel’s report, be approved.

The Committee considered the position with regard to the activities set out in the Work Programme 2010/12.  In terms of the dissemination of information, it was noted that each local authority would have to publicise its adoption, revision or replacement of a Code of Conduct pursuant to the provisions of the Localism Act.

RESOLVED:  That the position with regard to the activities set out in the Committee’s work programme 2010/12 be noted.

The Committee considered a joint report by the Monitoring Officer and the Chairman of the Committee setting out proposed arrangements for implementing the provisions of the Localism Act in so far as they relate to the ethical standards regime.  It was noted that:-

All local authorities (including Parish Councils) would have to have a Code of Conduct, which accorded with the seven Nolan principles, but there would no longer be a national mandatory Code.

The report suggested that the new Code of Conduct should be based on the existing Code.

All local authorities would have to have a system in place to deal with allegations of Member misconduct, but there was no statutory requirement to have a Standards Committee.  However, local authorities would have to appoint an Independent Person whose views were to be sought, and taken into account, by the authority before making a decision on an allegation that it had decided to investigate.  A person against whom a complaint was made would also be able to seek the views of this Independent Person.  The Council would still be able to co-opt Independent Members onto the Standards Committee, but these Members would only be able to vote if the Committee was advisory in nature.

The Council had decided already that there should continue to be a Standards Committee comprising Borough, Parish and Independent Members.  The report suggested that ad hoc groups of Members chosen from the Standards Committee membership could be called (as now) to deal with allegations of misconduct.  The Standards Committee would meet once a year to elect a Chairman/Vice-Chairman and then on an ad hoc basis if called upon by the Council to undertake any specific duties.  The Committee and groups would be chaired by Co-opted Independent Members and the Committee would comprise 3 Independent Co-opted Members, 3 Parish Council representatives and 1 Borough Councillor from each political group.  It was considered that this would provide a pool of sufficient size to select the groups to deal with complaints.

With regard to complaints handling, the report suggested that as and when allegations of misconduct were received they should be considered by the Monitoring Officer, who would make a decision as to whether they should be considered, having consulted the Independent Person.  If it was decided that an allegation should be considered, a Panel of 3 Members would be called, which would consider the written representations of the complainant, the Councillor complained about and the Independent Person.  If the Panel concluded that there had been no breach, then that would be the end of the matter.  If the Panel believed that it needed to hear oral representations from the complainant, Councillor and Independent Person, it could arrange to do so, or if it concluded that a fuller investigation was needed, it could request the Monitoring Officer to carry this out.  If the Panel concluded that there had been a breach, it would make a recommendation to that effect to a Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee comprising 3  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The Monitoring Officer submitted details of the Code of Conduct complaints received by the Council during the period 1 June to 30 November 2011.  It was noted that during this period:-

·  Nine complaints had been made involving seventeen Councillors; two of these were Borough Councillors and the rest Parish Councillors.  The Assessment Sub-Committee had met on seven occasions.  It had decided to take no further action in relation to three complaints, to investigate two complaints and to refer two complaints for other action; in one case this was for the Monitoring Officer to speak to the Councillor about the Code of Conduct and Council procedures and in the other for the Monitoring Officer to advise the Clerk about the necessity to record disclosed interests accurately.  The two remaining complaints would be assessed by the Sub-Committee on 14 December.

·  One investigation had been completed and the Consideration Sub-Committee had agreed with the Investigator that there had been no breach of the Code.

The Monitoring Officer advised the Committee that a significant number of the complaints had related to one Parish Council, but there had not been a discernable trend in the complaints that would lead him to believe that specific training needed to be arranged.  It was suggested by a Co-opted Member that there did seem to be a failure to record disclosures of interest accurately, and this was reflected in some of the complaints received.  Councillor Stead undertook to write to Parish Council Chairmen asking them to remind their Clerks about the importance of recording disclosed interests accurately.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

The Head of Legal Services reported that an application had been received from Councillor Jonathan Lewis, a new Member of Boughton Monchelsea Parish Council, for a dispensation to enable him to speak and vote at meetings of the Parish Council when matters relating to the Boughton Monchelsea Amenity Trust were being considered notwithstanding the fact that he had a prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Trustee.  All of the other Parish Councillors had been granted dispensations.

RESOLVED:  That a dispensation be granted to Councillor Jonathan Lewis to enable him to speak and vote at meetings of the Boughton Monchelsea Parish Council when matters relating to the Boughton Monchelsea Amenity Trust are being discussed notwithstanding the fact that he has a prejudicial interest by virtue of being a Trustee, such dispensation to expire on 30 June 2012.

There were no other announcements.

10.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.