Review Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee

Decision Notice and Summary of the Consideration of Complaint 2009/1

by the Review Sub-Committee on Monday 30 November 2009

A - MAIN POINTS CONSIDERED

Complainant A

Date of complaint 11 May 2009

Date of receipt 12 May 2009

Accused member B who was the chairman of X Parish Council

Summary of complaint The complainant provided the following summary of his complaint:

`(1) [B] has failed to respect the Code's General Principles of Accountability, Openness, Duty to Uphold the Law, and Leadership, in consequence of which he is in breach of Article 5, which requires him to act in a manner which does not bring his office and the authority into disrepute.

(2) Under [B's] chairmanship and leadership [XPC] conducts much of its business in private working parties (a number of which comprise a working majority of the PC, including Chair and Deputy), which deny the press and public their right of access to debate and discussion; de facto take executive decisions; fail to keep proper records as required by law (formerly known as Committees, Working Parties were renamed under [B's] chairmanship to get round this requirement).

(3) Despite complaints from electors, the press, and Councillors, which make clear that there is a public loss of confidence in and respect for [X Parish Council] and the way it conducts it affairs, [B] has failed in his duty, using the prerogative of the Chair, to ensure that [X Parish Council] complies with democratic law AND protects the constitutional rights of electors, and has thereby brought the Parish Council into contempt and disrepute.'

Material considered The Review Sub-Committee considered the evidence contained in the agenda papers and circulated at the meeting, the relevant provisions of the Code of Conduct, the range of possible decisions which the Review Sub-Committee was entitled to make, the criteria to which it was to have regard in considering the complaint including guidance issued by Standards for England, and the duty to publish after its meeting a summary of the Review Sub-Committee's consideration.

B - CONCLUSIONS

Having regard to the material placed before it, the Review Sub-Committee did not consider it to be appropriate for A's complaint to be referred to the Monitoring Officer for formal investigation. In its view the matters alleged did not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct in that A's complaint related to the administration and workings of X Parish Council rather than the behaviour or conduct of the accused member B. The complaint should not be referred to another authority to which the accused member may belong. There were no grounds for referring the complaint to Standards for England for investigation. It was not a matter where the Monitoring Officer should be instructed to arrange training of B, conciliation between A and B or other appropriate steps. The complainant had supplied sufficient information to enable the Review Sub-Committee to reach its decision that the complaint, if proven, would not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

C - REASONS FOR THE REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE'S CONCLUSIONS

(1) It was not unlawful for X Parish Council to appoint and use working parties to report directly to the full parish council meeting.

(2) The material submitted indicated the working parties, which may consist of several members or just a single individual, were appointed by a resolution of the parish council meeting and had not been afforded any executive powers.

(3) There was no evidence to suggest that the working parties were actually undertaking executive functions or exceeding the remit of what a working party could legally undertake but were in fact reporting back, either orally or in writing, to the full parish council meeting.

(4) There was no evidence that any complaints (other than by A himself) had been made to X Parish Council by the press or public that the working parties system was denying the press and public a right of access to debate and discussion, was taking executive decisions in place of the full parish council meeting or was failing to keep proper records of meetings.

(5) The Code of Conduct regulated the behaviour of each individual member and not the parish council as an entity. The Code did not specifically single out the chairman of a council as being under a greater obligation than any other member. As chairman, B was under no greater degree of responsibility under the Code of Conduct or the ten general principles of public life set out in the Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001 than any other parish member. The appointment of working parties, which was the decision of X Parish Council and not B, was in any event lawful. It followed that B was not in breach of Para 5 of the Code of Conduct which required him not to bring his office or X Parish Council into disrepute.

(6) There was no evidence of complaints from electors, the press or other members of X Parish Council which established a public loss of confidence in and respect for X Parish Council and the way it conducted its affairs, or that B had failed in his duty, using the prerogative of the chair, to ensure that X Parish Council complied with democratic law and protected electors' constitutional rights, thereby bringing X Parish Council into contempt and disrepute.

D - RIDER TO THE REVIEW SUB-COMMITTEE'S DECISION

Notwithstanding the decision that no action be taken on the complaint, the Review Sub-Committee wished a letter to be written by the Council's Monitoring Officer to the clerk to X Parish Council (and to be copied to Mr T Leggo of the Sussex Association of Local Councils) expressing its unease over X Parish Council's practice as a whole of conducting its business by such extensive use of working parties without written and publicly accessible terms of reference, which it did not consider to be good practice albeit not unlawful, and stating that it felt that serious consideration should be given by X Parish Council to reforming its process of decision-making.

Dated Monday 7 December 2009

- 3 -