Agenda and minutes

Resolved: Councillor Keane is nominated as Chairman of this meeting.

There were none.

4             Consideration of Investigation Reference Z38/68

5             Exclusion of the Public:

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) and their financial affairs.

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.

Resolved: Following legal advice, the Sub Committee agrees to hold the hearing in private on the grounds that Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 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 and information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person) as in this case, discussion would involve details of individual(s) and their financial affairs).

6             Consideration of Investigation Reference Z38/79:

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

The Sub Committee had received no notification from the former Councillor in regard to attending the hearing.  The Sub Committee decided to hear the matter in her 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;

·         The complaint had been outstanding for a considerable period;

·         The former Councillor had been notified 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 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:-

That the subject Mmember had:

(1)  Direct contact with three developers whilst serving on the Council’s Planning Committee (prior to any formal application submission);

(2)  Been in touch with high level Board members from each company discussing and supporting their proposals;

(3)  Discussed developers proposals within the Standish Labour Group;

(4)  Directed one company to hold consultation meetings which she attended and was also asked to support their development proposals by circulating associated literature;

(5)  Provided information about Core Council Strategy preferences and medical capacity/associated data to one company;

(6)  Been offered and accepted hospitality from one company (no evidence it was actually taken because the event was cancelled);

(7)  Provided a wide range of contentious information to the local press (published her views) despite being asked by the Leader to delay such action.

The Sub Committee considered the information provided by the subject Member but as she had chosen not to attend was unable to hear oral  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Committee is asked to consider whether by resolution to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the items of business marked with an ‘E’ reference because of the possibility of the disclosure of exempt information.

The Sub Committee had not received notification from the subject Member as to whether she wanted the hearing to be held in public despite the opportunities she had been given to state her preference in advance of the hearing. 

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. 

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 former Councillor that she had breached the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Sub Committee had received no notification from the former Councillor in regard to attending the hearing.  The Sub Committee decided to hear the matter in her 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;

·         The complaint had been outstanding for a considerable period;

·         The subject Member had been notified 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 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:-

·         The subject Member was contacted by the patients family for support

·         The subject Member was known by the patients family in a personal capacity

·         The subject Member did contact Councillor Brierley for his support

·         At 11.30 am on Saturday 28^th July 2012 both Councillors attended the Medical Assessment Unit (MAU) with the patient’s mother and the Senior Manager On-Call, Consultant, and MAU Sister

·         The meeting had been requested by the patients mother to discuss concerns relating to the care of her son.

·         Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh (WWL) staff made comprehensive notes of the meeting that detail the conversations that resulted in the issues of concern

·         During the meeting the subject Member made several general statements about Neurological facilities at the RAEI and also specific statements about the patient’s needs, the most inappropriate being, viz.:-

a.   WWL should have a neurology ward. Commissioners would support the opening of a neurology ward in Wigan;

b.   A meeting was going ahead with the DCEO, Senior Commissioners and Senior PCT Lead for dealing with complaints;

c.   The councillor would sort out all the funding required to meet the patient’s needs;

d.   The councillor would put performance indicators in place to monitor the Trust’s performance;

The Sub Committee considered the information provided by the subject Member but as she had chosen not to attend was unable to hear oral evidence from her or question her.

The Sub Committee concluded, after having consulted with the Independent Person,that the subject Member’s actions in the meeting towards professional NHS staff, did satisfy the threshold of intimidation, perceived influence and undermined the Trust officers.  As a result, she had breached the following paragraphs of the Council’s Code of Conduct under the following articles:

Paragraph 3.1 (b): You must not bully or be abusive to any person;

Paragraph 5: You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute; and

Paragraph 6 (a): “You must not use or attempt to use your position  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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) and their financial affairs.

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.

Resolved: Following legal advice, the Sub Committee agrees to hold the hearing in private on the grounds that Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 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 and information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person) as in this case, discussion would involve details of individual(s) and their financial affairs.

Report of the Assistant Director – Legal attached.

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

The Sub Committee had received no notification from the former Councillor in regard to attending the hearing.  The Sub Committee decided to hear the matter in her 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;

·         The complaint had been outstanding for a considerable period;

·         The former Councillor had been notified 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 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:-

That the subject Mmember had:

(1)  Direct contact with three developers whilst serving on the Council’s Planning Committee (prior to any formal application submission);

(2)  Been in touch with high level Board members from each company discussing and supporting their proposals;

(3)  Discussed developers proposals within the Standish Labour Group;

(4)  Directed one company to hold consultation meetings which she attended and was also asked to support their development proposals by circulating associated literature;

(5)  Provided information about Core Council Strategy preferences and medical capacity/associated data to one company;

(6)  Been offered and accepted hospitality from one company (no evidence it was actually taken because the event was cancelled);

(7)  Provided a wide range of contentious information to the local press (published her views) despite being asked by the Leader to delay such action.

The Sub Committee considered the information provided by the subject Member but as she had chosen not to attend was unable to hear oral evidence from her or question her.

The Sub Committee concluded, after having consulted with the Independent Person, that the subject Member had worked closely with developers in an inappropriate fashion for an Elected Member and in particular a Member of the Council’s Planning Committee.  As a result, she had breached the following paragraphs of the Council’s Code of Conduct under the following articles:

Paragraph 5: You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the Council into disrepute; and

Paragraph 6 (a): “You must not use or attempt to use your position as a Member improperly to confer or to secure for yourself or any other person, an advantage or disadvantage…”

In addition to the above breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct, the Sub Committee concluded that the subject Member conduct has breached several key requirements of the Council’s Members’ Planning Code of Good Practice. In particular the Sub Committee concluded that the former Councillor’s proven actions are in contravention to the detailed requirements of section 6 (Lobbying of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.