It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Butcher, Mrs Hinder, Parvin, Mrs Riden, Mrs Robertson, Stead, Mrs Stockell and Younger.

There were no Substitute Members.

It was noted that Councillor Mrs Wilson, the Leader of the Opposition, had been invited to address the meeting.

There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

RESOLVED:  That the items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 September 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed.

As part of the process of introducing speakers to stimulate discussion about the role of the Standards Committee, Councillor Mrs Wilson, the Leader of the Opposition, addressed the meeting on the implications of the abolition of the standards regime and the need to maintain high ethical standards within the local government sector.  She suggested that, if it was accepted that there was a need for a set of standards within which Councillors should operate, then an independent body was required to monitor it.  She was of the opinion that the Standards Committee should be retained in some form, with Independent Members, and that the costs of this would need to be addressed given the current economic climate.  There should be a review of the organisational options, but she personally had reservations about merging the Standards and Audit Committees into an Audit and Governance Committee due to the different skills required.  The response to changes arising from the abolition of the standards regime should be decided by the Council as a whole.

In terms of the other functions currently undertaken by the Standards Committee and, specifically, the evaluation of proposed changes to the Constitution, Councillor Mrs Wilson said that she felt that a balance was required between the fresh perspective brought to the debate by the Independent Members and the historic perspective and understanding of the workings of the Council had by Councillors.

During the ensuing discussion, reference was made to:-

·  The arrangements for the submission and presentation of proposed changes to the Constitution for evaluation by the Standards Committee, including the need for (a) accurate and concise references with background information and (b) the attendance of the relevant Committee Chairman or his/her representative to explain what was involved.

·  The need for a meeting of the Chairmen of the Standards, Audit and Overview and Scrutiny Committees as soon as possible after the publication of the Localism Bill to review work programmes in order to complement and not duplicate effort.

·  The implications of the Council adopting a local Code of Conduct and the need to keep it under review.

·  The challenges facing local politicians in the future in terms of the difficulty in finding a broad range of people prepared to be Councillors given the time and commitment required; the need to engage back bench Members not involved in the Cabinet or shadow Cabinet; and the issue of succession planning.

The Committee thanked Councillor Mrs Wilson for an interesting discussion.

The Committee considered the position with regard to the activities set out in the Forward Plan 2010/11.  It was noted that:-

·  A letter had been sent to the Secretary of State urging an effective consultation process on what, if anything, would replace the current standards framework.  A reply had been received confirming that there would be no consultation process.

·  It was anticipated that the Localism Bill would be published in mid-December and that it would contain provisions relating to, inter alia:-

Ø  the devolution of powers to directly elected mayors;

Ø  the repeal of all legislation regarding standards of conduct, including the national Model Code of Conduct, Standards for England and Standards Committees, and its replacement, making it an offence to fail to declare certain interests; and

Ø  the pre-determination rules.

·  The Kent Association of Local Councils and Society of Parish Clerks had not given a substantive response about the adoption of Standards for England’s “Working with Parishes” Protocol.

·  The Chairman had met with Group Leaders, the Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer and a range of issues had been discussed, including the Standards Committee Forward Plan, the response to any consultation on the standards regime, the possibility of undertaking a light touch Ethical Governance Survey, the position relating to legal support for the Standards Committee in the context of the legal partnership, support for the Standards Committee generally in the current economic climate, the views of Group Leaders on the value added by the Standards Committee to the functions of the Council, and the promotion of the work of the Standards Committee through the Borough Update and the staff communication, Wakey Wakey.

·  The Chairman’s meeting with the Kent Association of Local Councils had been postponed pending publication of the Localism Bill.

·  Whilst there was no specific guidance directed to Council staff as to how to complain about Members’ conduct, they did have access to the Standards Committee web page which contained this information.  These arrangements would be kept under review.

RESOLVED:

1.  That the position with regard to the activities set out in the Standards Committee Forward Plan 2010/11 be noted.

2.  That no further action be taken on the “Working with Parishes” Protocol in the light of the lack of comments received from the Kent Association of Local Councils and Society of Parish Clerks.

The Committee considered a report prepared by the Chairman and Mr Powis following their attendance at a meeting of the Liaison Group of the Kent and Medway Independent Standards Committee Members when the main item of discussion was the implications of the abolition of the standards regime.

During the discussion on the report, it was suggested that some sort of ethical Code of Conduct for Councillors should be retained to maintain public trust, and that there would need to be a mechanism in place, including an external element, for monitoring it and responding to complaints about Councillors’ conduct.  Whatever arrangements might take the place of the current standards regime should also take account of the need to promote and maintain high standards of conduct for Parish Councillors.

RESOLVED:  That the report on the Independent Members’ Network meeting should be used as the basis for more discussions with Group Leaders, the Chairmen of the Standards, Audit and Overview and Scrutiny Committees and the Kent Association of Local Councils regarding what arrangements might take the place of the current standards regime.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Change and Scrutiny reviewing the Council’s performance in dealing with complaints during the period July to September 2010.

During the discussion, specific reference was made to the apparent discrepancy between the figures set out in paragraph 1.3.3 of the report and those included in Appendix A; the need to understand the difference between a complaint and a service request; the issue as to whether the number of complaints surveys sent out and returned in Quarter 2 was sufficient to make a judgement on public perception of the way in which their complaints were handled; the need to record the actual cost of the time spent dealing with complaints and to make staff aware of the financial implications of poor service; and the action being taken to ensure that complaints received via the website are logged on to the corporate system.

RESOLVED:  That subject to the points made during the discussion, the Council’s performance in responding to complaints during the period July to September 2010 and the action being taken to improve complaints handling be noted and endorsed.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Democratic Services regarding the possible use of the Modern.Gov committee administration software to enable Members to register their interests online via the intranet and members of the public to inspect the Register of Interests forms online.  It was noted that it was proposed that Parish Councillors would continue to use the current paper system.

The Committee raised a number of queries about the proposed new arrangements such as could the Independent Members and Parish Council representatives who did not have access to the intranet send hard copy details to the Monitoring Officer for inputting (and indeed any Member who did not want to do it online); was it only the Member him/herself who could amend an entry; and would all Members be asked to do the online version straightaway if it was adopted and not just those elected at the next election.

RESOLVED:  That no action be taken on the use of the Modern.Gov committee administration software for the registration of Members’ interests online via the intranet.

The Committee considered the report of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Cultural Services setting out details of the amendments which had been made to the Partnership Protocol guidance in the light of Standards for England advice.  It was noted that the Partnership Protocol guidance was intended to identify the key drivers and issues that needed to be considered by Members and Officers who were considering entering into new partnership arrangements or who were already engaged in an existing partnership.  It was essential for the Council that all those engaging in partnership working understood their corporate responsibilities in ensuring robust governance arrangements with partners to minimise the risk of service failure and/or financial loss or damage to the Council’s reputation.

RESOLVED:  That the amended Partnership Protocol guidance be endorsed subject to the changes made being covered in the Good Practice Checklist and a review being undertaken of the document to ensure that there are no typographical and/or grammatical errors.  

The Committee considered the report of the Monitoring Officer setting out details of the Code of Conduct complaints determined by the Sub-Committee during the period 1 June to 15 November 2010. It was noted that during the period one new complaint had been received.  It was made by a member of the public about a Parish Councillor and the Sub-Committee had agreed to take no further action.  Another complaint had been determined by the Sub-Committee; the Parish Councillor concerned was found to be in breach of the Code of Conduct and censured.

The Monitoring Officer advised the Committee that there had been no discernable trend in the complaints which would lead him to believe that any specific training needed to be arranged, but it remained the case that the training programme for Borough and Parish Councillors should continue this year.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

There were no applications for dispensations.

At the request of the Chairman, the Committee considered the arrangements for future meetings; specifically whether they should continue to be held in the morning.

RESOLVED:  That meetings of the Committee should continue to be held in the morning, commencing at 10.00 a.m.

10.00 a.m. to 12.20 p.m.