Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: The Panel resolved not to consider that complaint. The Panel found that there was no good reason to depart from the Local Resolution Protocol which states that complaints should be brought within three months. The Hearing commenced at 09.35. The Chair welcomed all parties and introduced everyone. The parties were advised that the Panel had resolved not to consider Complaint Three and the reasons for that. The Chair confirmed that third parties’ personal information had been redacted from the hearing papers and reminded the parties that third parties’ personal information should not be disclosed during the hearing. The Chair outlined the order to be followed at the hearing, in accordance with the Hearings Procedure. The Complainant, Councillor Molik, was invited to give her evidence first. The Respondent, Councillor Michael, then gave his evidence. The Panel was given the opportunity to ask questions of each Councillor. The Complainant was given the opportunity to sum up her complaint, and then the Respondent was given the opportunity to sum up his response. The Chair explained that the Panel would retire to deliberate and would announce the decision later that morning. The hearing was adjourned at 10.45 The Panel resumed in private with its Legal Advisor to deliberate over its decisions. The hearing resumed at 12.15. RESOLVED: In relation to each of the complaints made against Councillor Michael, the Panel found as follows: (1) Complaint One There was no evidence of a breach of paragraphs 4(b) or (c) of the Members’ Code of Conduct. However, the Panel made a recommendation that Cllr Michael should ensure that he addresses specific and legitimate service area queries within his Cabinet portfolio, or where this is not possible, to cooperate in ensuring such queries are addressed, for example by referring these on to an appropriate officer of the Council; and (2) Complaint Two There was no evidence of a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Members’ Code of Conduct.
No apologies for absence were received.
No declarations of interest were received.
The minutes of the meeting on the 15 December to discuss the preliminary issues were agreed as a correct record of that meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: The Panel resolved not to consider that complaint. The Panel found that there was no good reason to depart from the Local Resolution Protocol which states that complaints should be brought within three months. The Hearing commenced at 09.35. The Chair welcomed all parties and introduced everyone. The parties were advised that the Panel had resolved not to consider Complaint Three and the reasons for that. The Chair confirmed that third parties’ personal information had been redacted from the hearing papers and reminded the parties that third parties’ personal information should not be disclosed during the hearing. The Chair outlined the order to be followed at the hearing, in accordance with the Hearings Procedure. The Complainant, Councillor Molik, was invited to give her evidence first. The Respondent, Councillor Michael, then gave his evidence. The Panel was given the opportunity to ask questions of each Councillor. The Complainant was given the opportunity to sum up her complaint, and then the Respondent was given the opportunity to sum up his response. The Chair explained that the Panel would retire to deliberate and would announce the decision later that morning. The hearing was adjourned at 10.45 The Panel resumed in private with its Legal Advisor to deliberate over its decisions. The hearing resumed at 12.15. RESOLVED: In relation to each of the complaints made against Councillor Michael, the Panel found as follows: (1) Complaint One There was no evidence of a breach of paragraphs 4(b) or (c) of the Members’ Code of Conduct. However, the Panel made a recommendation that Cllr Michael should ensure that he addresses specific and legitimate service area queries within his Cabinet portfolio, or where this is not possible, to cooperate in ensuring such queries are addressed, for example by referring these on to an appropriate officer of the Council; and (2) Complaint Two There was no evidence of a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Members’ Code of Conduct.
The Panel met in private to consider the preliminary matter in respect of whether it was appropriate for the Panel to consider and make a determination in relation to Complaint Three, which related to an incident that occurred in March 2018. RESOLVED: The Panel resolved not to consider that complaint. The Panel found that there was no good reason to depart from the Local Resolution Protocol which states that complaints should be brought within three months. The Hearing commenced at 09.35. The Chair welcomed all parties and introduced everyone. The parties were advised that the Panel had resolved not to consider Complaint Three and the reasons for that. The Chair confirmed that third parties’ personal information had been redacted from the hearing papers and reminded the parties that third parties’ personal information should not be disclosed during the hearing. The Chair outlined the order to be followed at the hearing, in accordance with the Hearings Procedure. The Complainant, Councillor Molik, was invited to give her evidence first. The Respondent, Councillor Michael, then gave his evidence. The Panel was given the opportunity to ask questions of each Councillor. The Complainant was given the opportunity to sum up her complaint, and then the Respondent was given the opportunity to sum up his response. The Chair explained that the Panel would retire to deliberate and would announce the decision later that morning. The hearing was adjourned at 10.45 The Panel resumed in private with its Legal Advisor to deliberate over its decisions. The hearing resumed at 12.15. RESOLVED: In relation to each of the complaints made against Councillor Michael, the Panel found as follows: (1) Complaint One There was no evidence of a breach of paragraphs 4(b) or (c) of the Members’ Code of Conduct. However, the Panel made a recommendation that Cllr Michael should ensure that he addresses specific and legitimate service area queries within his Cabinet portfolio, or where this is not possible, to cooperate in ensuring such queries are addressed, for example by referring these on to an appropriate officer of the Council; and (2) Complaint Two There was no evidence of a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the Members’ Code of Conduct.
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.