Agenda item

Resolution of the Establishment Committee.

The Committee received a report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor setting out the main legal and governance issues which arise where former officers are elected as Corporation members alongside a summary of the discussion on this at the January 2017 meeting of the Establishment Committee.

The Deputy Chairman, who was also currently serving as Deputy Chairman of the Establishment Committee, informed the Committee that the recent election of a former Chief Officer as a Common Councilman had caused some concern amongst elected Members, particularly the recommendation that this Member should serve on the City’s Planning and Transportation Committee and Property Investment Board, to which he had only recently reported. The Court of Common Council had therefore referred the matter to the Establishment Committee for further consideration.

The Deputy Chairman reported that there had been a lengthy discussion on the matter at the most recent meeting of the Establishment Committee where they had received a report of the Comptroller and  City Solicitor clearly stating that there were no legal grounds on which a former Officer could be prevented from standing or serving as an elected Member Any potential conflicts could be managed through the Members’ Code of Conduct and Protocols. It was also recognised that, once elected, it was a matter for the Court of Common Council to decide on which bodies it might be most appropriate for particular Members to serve.

The Establishment Committee had questioned whether there was a need for formal guidance around this going forward and it was noted that guidance already existed within the current Common Councilmen Job Description.

In response to questions, the Comptroller and City Solicitor reported that any restrictions imposed in Chief Officers contracts seeking to prevent them from becoming Members within a certain period of their employment ending would amount to a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms.

A Member commented that the onus should also be on individual Members to be mindful of any potential conflicts in considering where best they might serve.

A Co-opted Member suggested that this seemed to be a matter of common sense. He questioned whether some of the objections voiced by elected Members might have been ill founded and questioned whether a former Chief Officer could be elected to serve on a Committee they had previously reported to and simply decline to participate if and when this was felt appropriate. The Deputy Chairman explained that, in this case, the concern was not simply around matters that the Member had previously been involved in as an Officer, but also the relationships that he had built up with property developers during that time.  The Chairman confirmed that in the end no decision had been required as the Ward Deputy concerned had withdrawn his nomination at the Court of Common Council meeting at which it was formally raised and debated.

The Committee noted the resolution and were aware that, should an allegation be made with regard to any future conflict of interests arising from this kind of appointment, the matter might be referred to them as a breach of the Code of Conduct.

RECEIVED.