Agenda and minutes

There were none.

The Sub Committee considered representations from the Investigating Officer as whether the Hearing should be open to the public or held in private. 

The Sub Committee sought the view of the Investigating Officer who considered that in this case discussion would involve details of individual(s), including not just the subject Member but the patient, the patient’s family, hospital staff and individuals referred to in the investigation report.  He also stated that there was also a forthcoming hearing against ex Councillor McGurrin in relation to the same complaint and holding it in public would potentially prejudice that hearing. 

Although the Sub Committee recognised the public interest in justice being seen to be done, having considered both sides of the argument, it felt that the greater public interest was to maintain the exemption which would also ensure that any future complainant(s) and witnesses are not discouraged from bringing such complaints in the future.

Resolved: Following legal advice, the Sub Committee agrees to hold the hearing in private on the grounds that Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 applied (information relating to any individual or which is likely to reveal the identity of any individual) as in this case, discussion would involve details of individual(s), including not just the Subject Member, but the witnesses and individuals referred to in the investigation report.

Report of Assistant Director – Legal (Monitoring Officer) attached.

The Sub Committee considered a report of the Investigating Officer, Peter Hogg, which requested Members to consider allegations against a Member that he had breached the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Sub Committee was notified by the Subject Member that neither he nor his representative would be attending the hearing.  The Sub Committee decided to hear the matter in the Subject Member’s absence. In doing so the Sub Committee took into account the following matters;

·         The Subject Member had been offered a number of opportunities to engage with the process;

·         It had been at the Subject Member’s  request (through the Chair of the Standards Committee) that hearings against him take place separately, one per week;

·         The complaint had been outstanding for a considerable period;

·         The Subject Member had been aware of the date and time set for the hearing for a reasonable time;

·         The investigating officer was in attendance and had prepared for the hearing to take place;

·         The hearing had already been postponed on a previous occasion at the Subject Member’s request.

The Sub Committee took into account the oral and written representations on behalf of the Investigating Officer, which set out the details of the complaint. 

The Sub Committee agreed the following facts:-

·         At approximately 1:30 am on Saturday 28 July 2012 the Subject Member attended (unannounced) the Intensive Care Unit at RAEI enquiring about a patient. He was directed to the Medical Assessment Unit (MAU) where the patient was being treated. (This was contrary to hospital procedures and he should have been asked to leave).

·         At the MAU the Subject Member made enquiries as to the condition and treatment of the patient allegedly at the request of the patient’s mother. He had incorrectly believed that the patient was dying, and needed to be transferred to Hope Hospital.

·         The Subject Member was refused (correctly) any patient information by the Staff Nurse who called the Bed Manager to the MAU to deal with the Councillor.

·         The Subject Member would not accept the staff’s decision not to provide him with patient information and repeatedly asked them for it.

·         After failing to contact the patient’s mother (by phone), the Subject Member was asked to leave and left the MAU at 2:10 am.

·         The on-call Manager subsequently contacted the patient’s father and was advised that they had requested the Subject Member’s assistance.

·         Following the incident, security officers were based at the MAU overnight in case the Subject Member returned.

·         The unannounced visit of the Subject Member, especially during the early hours of the morning, was unacceptable and inappropriate. His behaviour was not viewed by any staff as threatening or aggressive in manner, however, the timing of his unannounced arrival and persistent efforts to gain information from two members of staff resulted in staff feeling uncomfortable, intimidated and distracted by the situation in which they found themselves.

·         At 11.30 am on Saturday 28^th July the Subject Member and his Councillor colleague attended the MAU with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.