Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Virtual Meeting - Zoom
Contact: Eirian Roberts 01286 679018
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES To receive
any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were
received from Councillor Dewi Roberts. |
|
DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST To receive
any declaration of personal interest. Minutes: No declarations of
personal interest were received from any members present. |
|
URGENT ITEMS To note any items that are
a matter of urgency in the view of the Chairman for consideration. Minutes: No urgent matters
were raised. |
|
The Chair shall propose that the minutes of the previous meeting of this
committee held on 27th January, 2020 be signed as a true record (attached). Minutes: The Chair signed
the minutes of the previous meeting of this committee held on 27 January, 2020
as a true record. |
|
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2019/20 PDF 183 KB To submit the
report of the Senior Solicitor (Corporate)
(attached). Additional documents: Decision: To approve the annual report to
be submitted to the Full Council on 3 December, subject to adding:- ·
a paragraph noting that every council, and
every member of every council, has a role to uphold and promote a high standard
of conduct in the public eye and to challenge inappropriate behaviour, be that
with or without the Ombudsman's involvement. ·
an introduction and foreword by the Chair and
the Monitoring Officer. Minutes: Submitted - the draft
of the committee's annual report for 2019/20. The committee's observations and
approval of the document were invited. Members were asked to
check their biographies and to contact the Senior Solicitor - Corporate with
any amendments / updates. Councillor Beth
Lawton noted the need to delete the reference to her as Chair of the Education
and Economy Scrutiny Committee, and to note that she was now Vice-chair of the
Care Scrutiny Committee. It was explained that
it was intended to carry on with the committee's work programme in light of the
pandemic crisis, by submitting an amended work programme for members in
February, when the situation in terms of resources, etc. would be clearer. It was asked whether
a reference should be included in the annual report towards a matter raised in
the full Council on more than one occasion regarding the public interest
test. In response, it was explained that
the training for community councils emphasised the message that councils
adopted their own code, and no matter what the situation in terms of
investigation, that promoting appropriate behaviour was part of the structure
of every body and every meeting. The members agreed there was a need to convey
a further message that conduct was not always something for the Ombudsman to
resolve, and that the individual and the body in question had a responsibility,
and the Senior Solicitor - Corporate was asked to include a paragraph along these
lines in the annual report. To approve the annual report to be submitted to the
full Council on 3 December, subject to adding:- ·
a paragraph noting that every council, and every
member of every council, has a role to uphold and promote a high standard of
conduct in the public eye and to challenge inappropriate behaviour, with or
without the Ombudsman's involvement. ·
introduction and foreword by the Chair and
Monitoring Officer. |
|
UPDATE ON THE PROTOCOL FOR HOLDING VIRTUAL MEETINGS PDF 208 KB To submit the
report of the Monitoring Officer (to
follow). Additional documents: Minutes: Submitted - the
report of the Monitoring Officer inviting the committee to consider the
contents of the Protocol for Virtual Meetings, prepared in response to
introducing the Local Authority Regulations (Coronavirus) (Meetings) (Wales)
2020 on 22 April 2020. During the
discussion the following matters were raised: ·
Concern was expressed that some community councils
were not convening as they should, and it had been given to understand that
there were examples of community councils putting their own rules to one side,
e.g., by allowing a member, who had declared an interest, to remain at the
meeting. It was noted that the protocol
should be sent to town and community councils underlining the situation in
terms of declaring interest and how to move members to the waiting room etc. In response, it was explained that the
protocol was already available to the public, as it was on the agenda for this
meeting. It was also explained, that
although Zoom made it possible to move people to a waiting room etc., that not
all bodies used Zoom. Nevertheless, it
was noted that the officers would be happy to provide good practice guidelines
for the town and community councils, who met the spirit of the requirements, if
not the letter. ·
It was suggested that matters where there was an
interest could be moved to the end of the agenda as a practical way of solving
the problem, as this then meant that any member with an interest would be able
to leave the meeting altogether. ·
It was noted that there was a need for town and
community council members to have the opportunity to practise using the
technology and to begin to return to the routine of holding regular
meetings. Also, it was possible that
clerks might require more than the protocol, and that a step by step guide in
the form of screenshots explaining how to set up a meeting, contribute, put
people on mute, leave etc. would help with their confidence. ·
It was suggested that the nature of the matters that
the Standards Committee was required to consider could change if the procedure
for holding town and community council meetings virtually were to continue in
future. In response, it was explained
that the discussion was ongoing in terms of holding on to the best elements of
the existing regulations and building them into more permanent regulations in
the Local Government Bill. It was also
noted that virtual meetings made it easier for people who were working, etc.,
to participate. ·
The Democracy Service was thanked for its work in
facilitating members' access to meetings, and the Council was thanked for
providing Zoom as a way of continuing to hold bilingual meetings. · It was asked whether any unforeseen problems had arisen. In response, it was noted that the meetings had gone very well in terms of the procedure in general, and that everyone was working well together. It was not possible to address every scenario, but rather to respond to whatever came up, as ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBERS PDF 328 KB To submit the
report of the Senior Solicitor (Corporate)
(attached). Minutes: Submitted - the
report of the Senior Solicitor (Corporate) presenting information about the Ombudsman's
decisions on formal complaints against members. During the discussion
the following matters were raised: ·
Referring to the complaint in paragraph 2.1 of the
report, it was explained that only the Standards Committee or Adjudication
Panel could determine whether or not someone was in breach of the code, and the
Ombudsman could not do this. In this
case, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the member’s observations to the
recipient of his letter suggested that he was in breach of paragraph 4(b) of
the Code, however he was not of the opinion that it would be commensurate or in
the public interest to take any further steps.
It was accepted that such a situation could be frustrating for the
complainant, and this was a practical example of the discussion held under item
5 above, i.e. that every council, and every member of every council, had a role
to uphold and promote a high standard of conduct in the public eye and to
challenge inappropriate behaviour, with or without the Ombudsman's involvement. ·
Concern was expressed that it appeared that
complainants did not always submit the evidence in a full and proper way to the
Ombudsman, and it was asked whether the Ombudsman would go back to the
complainant to say that the evidence was insufficient. In response, it was noted that it was a
matter for the complainant to submit the evidence, but that the Ombudsman was
alert to conduct that appeared unacceptable.
It was also noted that the concept of evidence sometimes meant careful
gathering and recording over a period of time, but usually, the Ombudsman would
understand the crux of the complaint. ·
It was asked where a situation such as the complaint in paragraph 2.1 left
the Standards Committee as there was a suggestion here that the Code had been
breached. In response, it was explained,
that although the conduct had not been up to standard in this case, no formal
steps could be taken, as the Ombudsman had not referred the complaint to the
committee's attention. It was also noted that hearing that the Ombudsman would
not take any further steps could compel the subject of the complaint to think
that they had done nothing wrong, and it was noted that the officers would be
happy to offer training on the Code in such situations. ·
It was suggested that the length of time it took to
investigate complaints could make people feel that they were not being taken
seriously, but it was acknowledged that the Ombudsman was under more pressure
to respond to complaints in the health field. ·
It was noted that the committee received little
information about individual complaints.
In response, it was explained that this was to ensure that the members
did not discuss the details of a complaint that could end up before the
Standards Committee. |