There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

There were no disclosures of lobbying.

RESOLVED:

1.  That the Minutes (Part II) of the meeting held on 25 August 2011 be considered in public but the information contained therein should remain private.

2.  That the exempt Appendices to the reports of the Monitoring Officer be taken in private as proposed together with the supplementary report of the Investigating Officer in relation to the complaint about possible breaches of the Code of Conduct by five Parish Councillors.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes (Parts I and II) of the meeting held on 25 August 2011 be noted as the Member/Co-opted Members who attended the meeting are not present to confirm the accuracy.

The Sub-Committee considered two reports by the Monitoring Officer concerning the related complaints about possible breaches of the Code of Conduct which it had referred to him for investigation.  It was noted that the Monitoring Officer had appointed Keith Trowell, Deputy Monitoring Officer at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (the Investigating Officer), to conduct the investigations.

The first report related to a complaint about possible breaches of the Code of Conduct by five Parish Councillors.  The Investigating Officer’s finding was that none of the five Parish Councillors had breached the Code of Conduct.

The second report related to a complaint about a possible breach of the Code of Conduct by one of the five Parish Councillors.  The Investigating Officer’s finding was that the Parish Councillor had not breached the Code of Conduct.

The Monitoring Officer advised the Sub-Committee that it should consider whether or not it agreed with the Investigating Officer’s findings in relation to each complaint.  If the Sub-Committee agreed with the Investigating Officer that there had been no breach of the Code of Conduct by any of the Parish Councillors, then that was the final decision in respect of the complaints.  However, if the Sub-Committee disagreed with the Investigating Officer that there had been no breach of the Code of Conduct by any of the Parish Councillors, then the complaint(s) would need to proceed to either a Standards Sub-Committee hearing or to the First Tier Tribunal.

Wishing to consider the Investigating Officer’s reports in private, the Sub-Committee:-

RESOLVED:  That the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business because of the likely disclosure of exempt information for the reason specified having applied the Public Interest Test:-

RESOLVED:

1.  That the Investigating Officer’s finding of no failure to observe the Code of Conduct in relation to the allegations against four of the five Parish Councillors be accepted for the reasons given in the Investigating Officer’s report.

2.  That the complaint in relation to the fifth Parish Councillor be referred to a hearing by the Sub-Committee.

RESOLVED:  That the complaint be referred to a hearing by the Sub-Committee.

9.30 a.m. to 1.15 p.m.