Agenda item

To submit the report of the Monitoring Officer (attached).

Submitted – the report of the Monitoring Officer requesting that the committee considered and made a decision on two applications for dispensation from members of Bethesda Community Council in relation to discussions regarding the transfer of local halls from the ownership of Gwynedd Council to the ownership of the Community Council (or other community body).

Details were given on the applications individually, namely:-

·         An application from Councillor Godfrey Northam, who was the Committee Chairman of Canolfan Rachub and a member of the Committee of Canolfan Cefnfaes, for permission to speak only when the matter would be discussed.

·         An application from Councillor Walter Watkin Williams, who was a member of the Committee of Canolfan Cefnfaes, for permission to speak and vote when the matter would be discussed.

The Monitoring Officer noted further:-

·         That neither of the members had been appointed on the committees in question by the Community Council.

·         That the Standards Committee was entitled to grant a dispensation provided that the situation fell under one (or more) of the grounds listed in the relevant regulations and that there was no reason to believe that the two applications in question did not meet the final ground on the list, namely "the business relates to the finances or property of a voluntary organisation of whose management committee or board I am a member and I have no other interest.” 

·         That the fact that the applications met this ground did not mean that the dispensation would be granted automatically and the committee had to consider whether or not there was a public interest from allowing the members to participate, despite the fact that the Code of Conduct made provisions that they should not be able to do so.

·         That it was unclear in both cases why these two specific members needed to speak on the matter. Councillor Northam felt that he had to participate in order to ensure that the Community Council fully understood the situation regarding the village hall; however, someone else could explain that. Councillor Northam had also noted on his form that 4 out of 13 members on the Community Council had to declare an interest in the matter; however, that would not affect quorum.

·         Should these applications be approved then the committee would have to approve other similar applications in the future, and without any information regarding why the need to speak justified the granting of a dispensation, it was difficult to know what precedent was being created.

The members agreed with the observations of the Monitoring Officer and noted that the information was patchy and vague and that the committee was unaware of the exact reasons why these applications had been submitted.

It was noted further that this committee could be inundated with similar applications as many community councils were currently discussing the transfer of assets and it was suggested that it would be beneficial to prepare and advice note for the clerks that provided an outline of the expectations. The Monitoring Officer replied that a series of courses for clerks and community council members were commencing that night and that this matter could be raised there.

RESOLVED to refuse both applications for a dispensation based on the lack of information.