Agenda item

Report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor.

The Committee received a report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor setting out the disciplinary powers of the Chief Commoner (and the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of the Court of Aldermen) and the Guildhall Club requested by Members at a previous Standards Committee meeting.

The Comptroller and City Solicitor highlighted that although the report was ‘For Information’ the Committee were being invited to consider whether these roles and responsibilities, and their interaction with the work of the Standards Committee, ought to be formally set out. He also highlighted that the roles of the Chief Commoner and the Privileges Chairman were already referred to in the agreed Complaints Procedure.

It was noted that, if any Member were aggrieved by disciplinary action taken by the Chief Commoner of the Chairman of General Purposes/Privileges, they could self-refer to the Standards Committee.

Members were of the view that the powers that could be exercised by the Chief Commoner and the Chairmen and the right of appeal against these powers required greater clarity. [EW1] 

A Member stated that [EW1] the Chief Commoner, the Chairman of General Purposes and the Chairman of Privileges[EW2]  performed informal, pastoral and discretionary functions in relation to members of their respective Courts. It was not, however, documented as to where this power was derived from.

The Chief Commoner confirmed that the terms of reference for his office were very wide and that disciplinary action available to the Chief Commoner was traditionally dictated by custom and practice. He added that any changes to the roles and responsibilities of the Chief Commoner would require the approval of the Court of Common Council. The Chief Commoner went on to state that, while he would appreciate some clarity in terms of the powers available to him, he would prefer to keep things relatively ‘open’ and define by exception only. In most cases he would characterise his role as to give advice rather than to mete out punishments. However, the Chief Commoner confirmed that he was very clear that any act that was a potential breach of the Code of Conduct would be escalated and dealt with formally by the Standards Committee.

A Member commented that it was important to underline this message as he was aware of a number of incidents dealt with by past Chief Commoners that were, undoubtedly, also breaches of the Code of Conduct. Members recognised that this was also a potential risk going forward if future Chief Commoners took a different view in terms of referring relevant matters to the Standards Committee.

A Co-opted Member stated that if anyone were to take exception to a decision of the Chief Commoner and refer the matter to the Standards Committee, the first question from the Committee would be did the Chief Commoner have the right/power to impose the sanction. 

Members were of the view that it would therefore be useful for the Chief Commoner to provide the Standards Committee with a written, anonymous report of the matters he/she had dealt with informally whilst in office to enable the Committee to pick up on any potential problems. A Co-opted Member reported that this currently happened at Parliamentary level.

With regard to the Guildhall Club, Members recognised that, as a private members club, it was proper that they should be able to take their own disciplinary action. However, Members were also keen to stress that, if the Guildhall Cub decided to take action or otherwise against an act that was also deemed to be a breach of the Code of Conduct, this would not prevent the Standards Committee from acting on the same matter if this were formally reported to them.

The Chairman requested that the Comptroller and City Solicitor produce a further report  for submission to the next meeting of the Standards Committee setting out options for how the Chief Commoner and Chairman of General Purposes/Privileges should interact with the Standards Committee going forward, including a requirement that the Chief Commoner report annually on disciplinary matters.  He asked that the Comptroller set out within the report those changes that the Committee itself could implement and those changes that would require the agreement of the Court of Common Council or the Court of Aldermen. A Member commented that the Chairman of General Purposes, the Chairman of Privileges, the Guildhall Club and the Monitoring Officer should also be required to produce similar annual reports to the Standards Committee, suitably anonymised, detailing disciplinary matters dealt with.

RECEIVED.