Agenda item

Standards Appeals Committee

To consider recommendations of an Appeals Sub-Committee.

Minutes:

STANDARDS APPEALS COMMITTEE

 

(Alderman Timothy Russell Hailes)

 

Recommendation of the Standards Appeals Sub Committee

The Court considered a report which set out the outcome of an Appeal made by Common Councilman John Chapman against the findings of a Hearing Sub Committee that he had breached the Code of Conduct. The report asked the Court to note the sanction and determine whether of not they felt it appropriate to discharge John Chapman from membership of the Standards Appeals Committee for a period of twelve months.

 

Members proceeded to debate the proposals. During the ensuing discussion, the following points were made:

·         A number of Members suggested that the process through which Mr Chapman’s case and appeal had been handled, together with the sanction imposed, was excessive and had caused unnecessary distress to those involved.

·         Some Members also expressed the view that matters of this nature should be dealt with by the Chief Commoner and not the Court, at least in the first instance. It was observed that it was felt inappropriate for Members to stand in judgement over other Members, particularly in instances such as these where the Court did not have all of the facts of the case before it.

·         In this particular case, several Members articulated the concern that the rationale and process which had resulted the proposed sanction was insufficiently clear to enable a decision.

·         A Member highlighted that the Court had a statutory duty to maintain and promote Members’ standards of conduct. They cited the 2018 staff survey which demonstrated how only 41% of staff felt inappropriate behaviour was dealt with effectively by the Corporation, which included Members’ behaviour. Several examples of inappropriate behaviour by Members were cited, with it observed that the Corporation had a duty of care to its staff who did not necessarily feel empowered to challenge Members’ behaviour in such instances. They articulated how this was particularly relevant in this instance, observing that the Hearing Sub Committee and the Appeal Sub Committee had deliberated and recommended the measures set out in the report.

·         Mr Chapman spoke to outline his view that the proposed recommendation and sanction was disproportionate. He also commented on the process which had been followed, which he considered to be unjust. Finally, he noted there had been various instances recently where concern had been expressed in relation to the standards process and, irrespective of the current case, urged that Members be unified going forward in respect of a new coherent and consistent approach.

·         With reference to the overall governance relating to the Standards Committee, a Member suggested that a Working Party be convened to look at the overall Standards process, whilst others commented that the processes surrounding the Standards Committee should be looked at in further detail during the governance review.

·         It was clarified that it was not the choice of the Standards Committee as to where complaints were dealt with; rather, it was a matter for the complainant to determine and, should the Standards Committee be the selected route, it had a resulting duty to investigate such complaints made. It was also noted that the City Corporation was legally obliged to have a process in place where complaints against Members could be investigated and appropriate action decided.

·         Some Members raised the point that, regardless of individual feelings about the current processes relating to the Standards regime, the formal processes that had been approved by the Court and were currently in place were those that had been followed. They suggested that, in view of this, the recommendation of the report should therefore be accepted.

·         Returning to the recommendation before the Court, Members observed that the current decision should focus on whether the sanction before Members was proportionate and the subsequent action taken should be made on the evidence provided.

·         A Member suggested that the discussion which had taken place thus far demonstrated that the report did not provide sufficient information to allow the court to take a decision on this matter. An amendment was subsequently moved to refer the report back for review and re-submission.

 

Amendment – That the report be referred back to the Standards Appeal Sub-Committee, to consider and provide further content for the report for re-submission to a future meeting of the Court.

 

The Chairman of the Standards Appeal Sub-Committee advised that he would support the proposal to refer the report back and added that fuller information pertaining to this case was available to all Members on request. He reiterated that the Sub-Committee had acted in complete accordance with the formal processes put in place by the Court.

 

Upon the Amendment being put, the Lord Mayor declared the amendment to be lost.

 

Upon the substantive Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be lost.

 

Resolved – That the proposed sanction be noted and rejected.

Supporting documents: