There were no disclosures by Members or Officers.

Councillor Mrs Robertson stated that she had received a telephone call the previous day from Councillor Mrs Pat Marshall of Bearsted Parish Council who would be giving evidence at the hearing.  However, Councillor Mrs Marshall had only enquired about procedures and she had referred her to the Monitoring Officer.

RESOLVED:  That the items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed, but the Sub-Committee’s deliberations as to the findings of fact, whether there has been a breach or breaches of the Code of Conduct and, if so, whether to impose the sanction of censure (this being the only remaining available sanction as a result of Mr Dyke no longer holding the position of Parish Councillor), should be taken in private.

RESOLVED:  That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2010 be approved as a correct record and signed.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

10.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.