Agenda and draft minutes

RESOLVED:  Councillor A Ware be appointed as Chair for the Hearing.

There were no apologies for absence.

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the Member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.

These declarations apply to all Members present, whether the Member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local Member on any item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.

There were no apologies for absence.

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

The Chair advised that the Panel was aware of a request received from Councillor Nash to have two members of the public.

The Chair invited the Independent Person to give a view.

Advice given by the Independent Person

The Independent Person explained that the Panel received a written request from Councillor Nash received on 24 January 2024.  The Independent Person’s provided advice and explained the Panel did not have to consider the request buy may wish to. 

The Independent Person provided information on the request from Councillor Nash on having two individuals as McKenzie friends.  She stated that McKenzie friends are individuals that attend court for somebody in the family court because proceedings in the family court were closed.  In criminal courts any member of the public may attend.  The individual has the right to apply for a McKenzie friend and it is up to the court to decide whether or not to grant that application.

The Independent Person stated that this was not a criminal court and the Panel was not bound by the same rules, but the Panel may wish to consider following the principles of what goes on within the court process.  If the Panel determined to follow the principles her advice would be that Councillor Nash makes a verbal application/request to the Panel, and details why he feels it is necessary and proportionate.

The Independent Person explained that she had never known an application for two individuals to be present as McKenzie friends, only one, and would therefore consider asking Councillor Nash to make a request for one only and added that it was doubtful that an application for two would meet the “necessary and proportionate” test. She suggested that the Panel may then wish to ask if anyone in the room had any objections, and that the Panel may then wish to consider in private deliberation, as per the court process, whether what Councillor Nash has requested is necessary and proportionate.  She added that the Panel may also wish to consider the risk of having members of the public involved.  Members of the public are not bound by the same Codes of Conduct and suchlike that other people in the room may be.  The Panel may decide that the risks can be mitigated in which case that is acceptable.

The Panel must ensure that there is no inference drawn from the individuals taking part in the process, either a negative or positive inference.  It was explained that whatever the Panel decided, reasons should be given for the decision whether they granted or refused the application in interests of fairness and that it may set a precedent for a future hearing.  It would be useful to understand the decision-making process and give a degree of transparency for all concerned.

The Independent Person explained that the Panel was not bound by the advice given but she had experience and knowledge of sitting in both criminal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider passing the following resolution:

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act”.

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube

At the invitation of the Chair, the Democratic Services read out the resolution for the Panel to consider excluding the press and public from the hearing.

Councillor Ring proposed that the press and public be excluded.  The proposal was seconded by Councillor Ayres and agreed by the Panel.

The Chair invited the Panel to outline reasons why the press and public should be excluded.

Councillor Ring explained that the hearing should proceed in exempt session because there were a number of references to individuals.  Those individuals had no ability to defend their position or comment on accusations made and therefore he believed that if that information got into the public domain without defence those individuals would be prejudiced against and would have issues, for example via social media.

Councillor Ayres concurred with the comments made by Councillor Ring and added that the investigation of the complaints had cost substantial ratepayers’ money already and there was no reason not to proceed with the hearing in Councillor Nash’s absence.

The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that the hearing would continue to be recorded and that no unauthorised recordings would be permitted.

RESOLVED:  That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

At the invitation of the Chair, the Investigating Officer presented the report.

The Investigating Officer responded to questions from the Panel and the Independent Person.

The Independent Person provided advice to the Panel on the Investigating Officer’s report.

The Investigating Officer summed up the complaint.

The Panel adjourned at 11.36 am and reconvened at 12.30 pm.

Three Borough Councillors addressed the Panel in support of Councillor Nash, in accordance with Procedural Orders made by the Panel in advance.

At 12.48 pm the Panel retired to consider the decision in private with the Deputy Monitoring Officer, the Independent Person and the Democratic Services Officer.

The Panel reconvened at 2.25 pm.

The Chair read out the decision of the Panel.

The Chair confirmed that a formal decision notice would be prepared by the Deputy Monitoring Officer and published within 7 working days following the Hearing.  A copy could be sent to the complainants and to the Borough Councillor.

The Chair also confirmed that the decision notice would be made available for public inspection and reported to the next meeting of the Standards Committee.

The meeting closed at 2.25 pm