Agenda and minutes

RECOMMENDATION that, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following Paragraph(s) of  Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act:

·         Paragraph 1 (information relating to an individual);

·         Paragraph 2 (information likely to reveal the identity of an individual); and

·         Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial and business affairs of any particular person – including the authority holding that information).

RESOLVED that, in accordance with Section 100A(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 involvea the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the following Paragraph(s) of  Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act:

·         Paragraph 1 (information relating to an individual);

·         Paragraph 2 (information likely to reveal the identity of an individual); and

·         Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial and business affairs of any particular person – including the authority holding that information).

Report of the Director of Corporate Services (SC/18/2) attached.

(An item taken in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during which the press and public were excluded from the meeting).

The Committee conducted a hearing into allegations that Councillor Mark Healey MBE (“the Subject Member”) had failed to comply with the Authority’s approved Members’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”).  The Committee conducted the hearing in two stages, the first to determine “findings of fact” as to whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the alleged breaches of the Code had been established.  The second stage dealt with the imposition of sanctions – including hearing submissions in mitigation - in the event that breaches of the Code were found to have been established.

STAGE 1 – FINDINGS AS TO FACT

During this stage the Committee:

·         considered a report of the Director of Corporate Services (SC/18/2) to which was appended:

o      a report of the external Investigating Officer summarising the complaint and the investigation findings into the alleged breaches of the Code; and

o      a copy of the complaint itself;

·         considered a written submission of Councillor Healey, with supporting documentation including a written statement from witness A and a written statement from Character Witness B as circulated with the agenda for the meeting;

·         considered a written witness partial statement and accompanying documentation submitted by witness C in support of Councillor Healey.  This supplementary documentation had been provided to the Committee on 24 October, 8 days after the deadline for submission of witness statements and on the day of the Committee’s pre-hearing process;

·         received presentations from both the Investigating Officer and Councillor Healey, who was accompanied by a legal consultant;

·         received evidence from one witness (the Complainant) as to the findings of fact (this witness was given permission to attend by the Committee at its pre-hearing on 24 October and following a properly submitted request from the Investigation Officer); and

·         considered a request from the Subject Member that witness C be allowed to give evidence as witness C had made special arrangements to be available.  In considering this request the Committee was of the view that it had determined, as part of the pre-hearing on 24 October, that whilst the late statement from witness C would be allowed as evidence, witness C would not be given permission to attend because the Committee had not been afforded the clearly prescribed time to assess whether it was necessary to ask witness C any questions.  The Committee was of the view that the position had not changed and the Subject Member’s request for permission for witness C to be allowed to be present to give evidence was refused.

The Investigating Officer, Councillor Healey and the Complainant were also questioned in some depth on their submissions by each of the Committee Members and the Independent Person.  Additionally, the legal consultant supporting Councillor Healey was afforded the opportunity to question both the Investigating Officer and the Complainant as to the findings of fact.

The report of the Investigating Officer detailed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item SC/5

RESOLVED That, in the event of Councillor Healey not complying with all of the sanctions as identified at (a), (b) and (d) of Minute SC/5 above within 28 days of this decision, the Authority be recommended to authorise the Monitoring Officer to write to the Monitoring Officer of Somerset County Council requesting that Councillor Healey be removed from the Authority for a period of four months.