Agenda item

To include the appointment of Members, Standing orders relating to the investigation of discipline of statutory officers and terms of reference for that Committee.

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

The Assistant Director, Central Services explained that the item had been requested by the Corporate Performance Panel (CPP), supported by the Chair of the Panel.  It was explained that the report responded to a brief as captured on the CPP work programme as follows:

“Full Review of the Investigating and Disciplinary Committee (IDC)” to include the appointment of Members, standing orders relating to the investigation of discipline of statutory officers and terms of reference for that Committee.”

The Panel was advised that a paper was attached to the covering report setting out the background to the creation of the IDC and the additional information requested by the Panel.  The Assistant Director explained that also attached were the model procedure, the recommendations from the report to Council and the Terms of Reference for the IDC as set out in the Constitution.

Councillor Nash stated that the Council had the policy in place to deal with such things and his view thought it was worth bearing in mind and considering, as Councillors dealing with the quasi-judicial procedure who had responsibility to the public. to learn the procedure so when officers perverted the procedure on behalf of voters, Councillors spotted the perversion of the course of justice and acted upon it.  Councillor Nash emphasised the inadequacy of Councillors on the Committee.

Councillor Hudson made comments regarding the delay in the procedure for investigations but the Chair, Councillor Moriarty reminded Councillor Hudson she was referring to the Standards Committee and not the IDC.

Councillor Nash declared an Interest in the IDC as he was involved in a complaint and added that one of the things the Council failed to pick up was that neither the person complained about or the complainant was interviewed.  The IDC was delegated to appoint an external investigator at a cost of £700 per day plus VAT and in this particular case was 4 days and that only one meeting was convened.  Councillor Nash agreed with the statement made by Councillor Hudson that the investigation procedure used by the Council was ignored by officers.

Councillor Hudson added that contrary to what council officers thought, Councillors had a lot of knowledge and added that there was no need to appoint anyone outside as Councillors who had knowledge of the Council, etc could be approached themselves to take this sort of task forward some knowledge of the Council, etc.  Councillor Hudson commented that there were enough Council officers in house and there was no need go outside of the Council.

The Chair, Councillor Moriarty explained that the Council had a statutory obligation to have an IDC.

Councillor Long drew the Panel’s attention to the recommendation and highlighted that Members were not scrutinising the Standards Committee regime. There was a statutory requirement for an IDC the report explained that the Council had an Appointments Board, which dealt with recruitment for senior officer posts such as the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer and it was recommended that body in existence also performed this function.  Councillor Long gave an overview on why investigations were required and explained the benefit of an external adviser. 

The Assistant Director, Central Services advised that the committee had been formed and this report summarised the creation and implementation of the committee.

Councillor Nash stated that the independent investigator should be appointed by the IDC at the choice of the statutory officer complained of.  Councillor Nash highlighted the responsibility of Councillors to oversee what the officers were doing. 

The Assistant Director, Central Services explained that the IDC had been created by extending the terms of reference for the existing Appointments Panel and within the regulations that you are able to extend the remit of an existing Council body to take on the responsibility.

In response to a question from the Chair, Councillor Moriarty on this arrangement being normal practice in other Councils, the Assistant Director, Central Services explained that it was normal practice for local authorities to use an existing structure to take on this responsibility. It was possible there could be a standalone committee, but this was the choice of a local authority

Following a further question from the Chair, Councillor Moriarty on the delegated decision arrangement during the Pandemic, the Assistant Director, Central Services confirmed that there had been a report for Full Council with the recommendations as attached at Appendix B of the report.

The Chair thanked the Assistant Director for the interesting report.

RESOLVED:  That the report was considered by Panel Members to familiarise themselves with the requirements for implementing an IDC within the Council and the steps undertaken to establish this Committee.