Agenda and minutes

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

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

At the beginning of the hearing, the Subject Member, Councillor Brierley advised the Sub Committee that he would be represented by Councillor Paul Maiden.

The Councillor stated that he had not received the papers for the hearing with adequate time to consider them properly, and that this amounted to discrimination on the grounds of disability (specifically based on his dyslexia). The Sub-Committee were informed that the Councillor:

(a)          had been in receipt of the draft report (which had not been amended) since March 2018;

(b)         had refused to engage with the standards process despite multiple opportunities to do so, other than to state that he had no intention of making a response because the MO had not followed procedure (which was addressed and not accepted at the outset of the standards process);

(c)          had been offered the assistance of a Democratic Support Officer to go through the papers in detail with him but had not taken this offer up.

Councillor Maiden sought to call evidence from a number of other Councillors who were in attendance. It was explained that the Councillor had had numerous opportunities to put forward evidence as part of the standards process, and that he had not given any prior indication to the Council that he wanted to call such evidence. As such, allowing this evidence would be contrary to natural justice and fair process. Nonetheless, the Sub-Committee requested that the Councillor explain the nature of the evidence and what purpose it would serve with reference to the complaint being dealt with. The Councillor stated that the witnesses would be providing character evidence in relation to the Deputy Monitoring Officer (DMO). The Investigating Officer was asked for her representations about this and strongly opposed the admission of the evidence.

In response the Councillor stated that to not allow this evidence would be to discriminate against him on the grounds of disability (specifically based on his dyslexia). The Sub-Committee were again informed that the Councillor:

(a)       had been in receipt of the draft report (which had not been amended) since March 2018;

(b)       had refused to engage with the standards process despite multiple opportunities to do so, other than to state that he had no intention of making a response because the Monitoring Officer (MO) had not followed procedure (which was addressed and not accepted at the outset of the standards process);

(c)       had been offered the assistance of a Democratic Support Officer to go through the papers in detail with him but had not taken this offer up.

Having considered the representations the Sub-Committee refused the request to call this evidence on the basis that:

(a)       despite having multiple opportunities to put his side the Councillor had failed to engage with the investigation and had not given prior notice that he wished to call this evidence;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.