Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: (1) That the Complainant shall be permitted to submit evidence in relation to the Respondent’s behaviour at the Council meeting in March 2018 (referred to as Complaint Three) for the panel to consider. (2) That it was not necessary to call Councillors Boyle and Sandrey to give evidence at the hearing.
No apologies for absence were received
No declarations of interest were received
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: (1) That the Complainant shall be permitted to submit evidence in relation to the Respondent’s behaviour at the Council meeting in March 2018 (referred to as Complaint Three) for the panel to consider. (2) That it was not necessary to call Councillors Boyle and Sandrey to give evidence at the hearing.
The Panel resolved to exclude the public on the basis that the discussion of this matter would include information which is exempt from publication under paragraphs 12 and 13 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. Deputy Monitoring Officer presented his report to the Panel. The Panel discussed the preliminary matters requiring determination in advance of the hearing, and the representations submitted by each party in respect of those matters. In relation to the exchange which took place during the Council meeting in March 2018 (Complaint Three), it was noted that the complaint was of a similar nature and that the Council’s webcast recording of the meeting had been made available. The Panel agreed that the Complainant should be allowed to submit evidence in relation to this incident. In relation to the request for Cllr Boyle and Cllr Sandrey to give evidence on behalf of the Complainant, it was noted that the exchange which those Cllrs had witnessed after the Council meeting was not specifically part of the complaints. As the complaint concerned the exchange which took place during the Council meeting and the Complainant’s evidence included the webcast recording of the Council meeting, the Panel did not consider that witness testimony from Cllr Boyle or Cllr Sandrey would provide any additional relevant evidence. On this basis, the Panel determined that it was not necessary to call Cllr Boyle or Cllr Sandrey to give evidence. The Panel also expressed concern regarding the incidental reference made about unacceptable behaviour towards female members of the Lib Dem group and wished to encourage anyone with such concerns to formally report their concerns so that they may be properly investigated. RESOLVED: (1) That the Complainant shall be permitted to submit evidence in relation to the Respondent’s behaviour at the Council meeting in March 2018 (referred to as Complaint Three) for the panel to consider. (2) That it was not necessary to call Councillors Boyle and Sandrey to give evidence at the hearing.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.