Agenda and Reports Pack[1]

8/3/2019 Agenda and Reports Pack[1]

1/46

SUB-COMMITTEE

STANDARDS SUB-COMMITTEE (F)

DATE AND TIMETHURSDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2011 AT 10.00AM

VENUEHENDON TOWN HALL, THE BURROUGHS, HENDON NW4 4BG

PLEASE NOTE TIME OF MEETING

TO: MEMBERS OF STANDARDS SUB-COMMITTEE (F)(Quorum 3, to include at least two Independent Members) (Those attending in Bold)

Independent Members:David Sparrow (Chairman)(apologies)

Ron Rosenhead (Vice Chairman, In the Chair)

Councillor:

Claire Farrier

Substitutes for Independent Members:Michael Barber Stephen Ross Tanya Ossack

Bernd Koschland Deborah Sanders

Substitutes for Councillor Member:Jack Cohen Wendy Prentice Andreas TambouridesLord Palmer Agnes Slocombe

You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an Agenda is attached.

Head of Governance: Aysen GiritliGovernance Service contact: Chidilim Agada 020 8359 2037

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DIRECTORATE


2/46

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ItemNo.

Title of Report Page Nos.

1. ABSENCE OF MEMBERS -

2. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIALINTERESTS

-

3. HEARING FOLLOWING AN INVESTIGATION INTO AN ALLEGATIONTHAT A MEMBER MAY HAVE BREACHED THE COUNCILS CODEOF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS

4. ANY ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE URGENT

FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Hendon Town Hall has access for wheelchair users including lifts and toilets. If you wish tolet us know in advance that you will be attending the meeting, please telephone ChidilimAgada on 020 8359 2037. People with hearing difficulties who have a text phone, maytelephone our minicom number on 020 8203 8942.

FIRE/EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

If the fire alarm sounds continuously, or if you are instructed to do so, you must leave thebuilding by the nearest available exit. You will be directed to the nearest exit by Committeestaff or by uniformed porters. It is vital you follow their instructions.

You should proceed calmly; do not run and do not use the lift. Do not stop to collect personalbelongings. Once you are outside, please do not wait immediately next to the building, butmove some distance away and await further instructions. Do not re-enter the building untiltold to do so.


3/46

1

AGENDA ITEM: 3 Page nos.

Meeting Standards Sub-Committee (F)

Date 24 November 2011

Subject Hearing following an Investigation into an allegation thata Member may have breached the Councils Code ofConduct for Members (SSA002/10)

Report of Director of Corporate Governance (Monitoring Officer)

Summary This report asks the Sub-Committee to consider the findingsof an investigation as directed following initial assessmentand in accordance with the Councils determinationsprotocols.

Officer Contributors Director of Corporate Governance (Monitoring Officer)Senior Governance Advisor

Status (public or exempt) Public

Wards affected AllEnclosures Enclosure A: Investigation Report

Enclosure B: Determinations Protocols & Criteria

Enclosure C: Determination hearing procedure

Enclosure D: Pre-hearing forms

Enclosure E: Skeleton Argument of the subject Member

Enclosure F: Correspondence between London BoroughBarnet and the Parties

For decision by Standards Sub-Committee

Function of Council

Reason for urgency / exemptionfrom call-in (if appropriate)

Not applicable

Contact for further information: Seye Aina, Senior Governance Advisor

020 8359 7156, [email protected]


4/46

2

1. RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 That the Standards Sub-Committee hear the case presented and reach adecision as to whether or not there has been a breach of the Code ofConduct.

1.2 That, if the Standards Sub-Committee find that there has been a breach, theymake a determination as to appropriate sanction and instruct officers topublicise the decision in accordance with the protocols.

1.3 That, if the Standards Sub-Committee find that there has not been a breach,they instruct officers to publicise the decision in accordance with theprotocols; unless the subject Member exercises his right to prohibit this.

2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS

2.1 6 September 2010 - Standards Sub-Committee A referred this matter for localinvestigation.

2.2 21 September 2011 Standards Sub-Committee F held a consideration meeting in

respect of this matter.

3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Not applicable.

4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES

4.1 Not applicable.

5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES

5.1 All consideration of findings that any Member may have breached the MembersCode of Conduct must be dealt with according to the provisions of the LocalGovernment Act 2000, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act2007 and associated Regulations. All Members must be treated equally; as mustall complainants, who may come from any and all sectors of the community.

5.2 The Code of Conduct includes a general obligation that Members must not doanything which may cause your authority to breach any of the equality enactments(as defined in section 33 of the Equality Act 2006). Whilst Section 33 is referred to

in the current Code of Conduct, the provisions of Section 33 have now beensuperseded by the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, where the equalityenactments are now contained.

5.3 The requirement of the Disability and Discrimination Act 2005 to make reasonableadjustments to assist complainants or Members would be met in any applicablecases. However, no such requirements have been identified in this case.

6. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS

6.1 None.

7. LEGAL ISSUES

7.1 The procedures for the hearing are conducted in accordance with the requirementsof The Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 and all other empowering


5/46

3

legislation. Where relevant, there are further legal references contained in the mainbody of the report and background papers.

8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS

8.1 Article 9.04 of the Constitution provides (among other things) that:

The Standards Committee will have the following roles and functions.

(k) To appoint a minimum of three Sub-Committees, each of no less than threepersons and including at least two Independent Members, drawn from theStandards Committee to carry out any of the roles and functions set out inparagraphs [l] to [p] below.

(p) Following an investigation and receipt of a report by the Monitoring Officer orOfficer appointed by the Monitoring Officer to carry out such investigation andprepare such report into an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct, to make adecision as to whether or not, on a balance of probabilities, there has been abreach of the Code of Conduct and, if there has been, to consider whether it isappropriate to impose a sanction and, if so, to decide upon a suitable sanction, or,

alternatively, whether it is appropriate to refer the case to the First-tier Tribunal(Local Government Standards in England) formerly the Adjudication Panel forEngland if the sanctions available to the Standards Committee are deemedinsufficient.

8.2 The Standards Committee has appointed sub-Committees to carry out its roles andfunctions related to the assessment, review and referral of allegations regardingbreach of conduct and those related to determination and application of sanction insuch cases.

9. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

9.1 On 12 August 2010, the Monitoring Officer received, a complaint from CouncillorKate Salinger dated 4 August 2010. The Senior Governance Advisor acknowledgedreceipt of the complaint on 17 August 2010.

9.2 The complaint alleged that Councillor Andreas Tambourides breached the followingparts of the Members Code of Conduct:-

Paragraph 3(1)You must treat others with respect;

Paragraph 3(2b)You must not bully any person;

Paragraph 3(2c) (iii)You must not intimidate or attempt to intimidate any person who is or is likely tobe involved in the administration of any investigation or proceedings in relationto an allegation that a member (including yourself) has failed to comply with hisor her authority's code of conduct;

Paragraph 5

You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regardedas bringing your office or authority into disrepute;

Paragraph 6(a)


6/46

4

You must not use or attempt to use your position as a member improperly toconfer on or secure for yourself or any other person, an advantageor disadvantage;

Paragraph 6(b)(ii)You must, when using or authorising the use by others of the resources ofyour authority ensure that such resources are not used improperly forpolitical purposes (including party political purposes).

9.3 The allegation relates to a news article alleged to be from the website of theLondon Daily News. The complainant alleges that Councillor Andreas Tambouridesforwarded the news article to all Conservative Councillors on Barnet Council and atleast one member of the general public.

9.4 The allegation was presented for an initial assessment by Standards Sub-Committee A on 6 September 2010. The Sub-Committee identified paragraphs3(1), 5 and 6(b)(ii) of the Code of Conduct as matters to be referred to theMonitoring Officer for Local Investigation. On 11 October 2010, the MonitoringOfficer appointed Mr Hem Savla as an investigator in this matter.

9.5 Standards Sub-Committee F had a consideration meeting on 21 September 2011to consider the investigators report dated 27 June 2011. The Standards Sub-Committee resolved that a date for a hearing should be set.

9.6 The pre-hearing forms (D) as recommended by Standards for England (SfE)guidance and the skeleton argument submitted on behalf of the subject memberare to follow. At the hearing the following documents are to be presented:

Enclosure A: Investigation Report

Enclosure B: Determinations Protocols & Criteria

Enclosure C: Determination hearing procedure

Enclosure D: Pre-hearing forms

Enclosure E: Skeleton Argument of the subject Member

9.7 This meeting of the Standards Sub-Committee F is therefore convened to conducta hearing into whether or not Councillor Andreas Tambourides has breached theMembers Code of Conduct.

9.8 The Sub-Committee is asked to consider the evidence presented to them at thehearing. The hearing should be conducted in accordance with the DeterminationsProtocols and Criteria (Enclosure B) and with reference to the Determination

Hearing Procedure (Enclosure C).

9.10 Once the presentation of the evidence is concluded, the Sub-Committee willadjourn to consider in private whether or not there has been a breach of the Codeof Conduct as alleged. Decisions will be made on the balance of probabilities andnot that of beyond reasonable doubt. The Determinations Criteria (Enclosure B)should be referred to throughout the process but particularly when determiningwhether or not there has been a breach and when applying a sanction.

9.11 Having reached a decision as to whether breach has been found or not, the Sub-Committee will return and the Chairman will announce the determination to thosepresent. If the determination is that there has been no breach then the subjectmember will be asked if he wishes to prohibit publication of the usual decisionnotice. If the determination is that there has been a breach then the subject


7/46

5

Member will be invited to present mitigating factors to be taken account of inapplying sanction.

9.12 The Sub-Committee would then adjourn for a second time and consider, in private,whether a sanction should be applied and, if so, what it should be. Again, once adecision had been reached the Sub-Committee would return and the Chairmanwould announce the decision.

9.13 A decision notice will be produced reflecting the decision of the Sub-Committee on

this matter in accordance with the determinations protocols. In the case of breachbeing found, the decision notice would include full details of the subject Membersright to appeal. A member subject to a standards committee finding may apply inwriting within 21 days of receiving notice of the decision to the President of the FirstTier Tribunal (previously the Adjudication Panel for England) for permission toappeal against that finding.

10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

Standards for England Guidance on Local Investigations and Other Action

Standards for England Guidance on Standards Committee Determinations

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007

The Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008.


8/46

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

REPORT

Case Reference: SSA 002/10

Report of an investigation under Sections 57A and 66 of the Local

Government Act 2000, pursuant to a referral by a Standards Sub Committee

of 6 September 2010, carried out by Mr Hem Savla as instructed by Mr JeffLustig the Monitoring Officer for the London Borough of Barnet concerning the

alleged conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides (subject member).

DATE: 27 June 2011

6

Enclosure A


9/46

Contents

1 Executive summary

2 Councillor Andreas Tambouridess official details

3 The relevant legislation and protocols

4 The evidence gathered

5 Summary of the material facts

6 Councillor Andreas Tambouridess additional submissions

7 Reasoning as to whether there have been failures to comply with

the Code of Conduct

7.3 Conduct under Paragraph 3(1)

7.4 Conduct under Paragraph 5

7.5 Conduct under Paragraph 6(b)(ii)

8 Finding

Appendix A Schedule of oral evidence taken into account

Appendix B Schedule of documentary evidence taken into

account

Appendix C Chronology of events

Page 2 of 20

7


10/46

1 Executive summary

1.1 Summary of allegation

1.1.1 The complainant (Councillor Kate Salinger) alleged that

Councillor Andreas Tambourides forwarded to all Conservative

Councillors on Barnet Council and at least one member of the

public, a news article alleged to be from the website of the London

Daily News;

the article was forwarded in its entirety in order to denigrate and

ridicule her to other Conservative Councillors and anyone else the

email may have been forwarded;

and stated that the alleged actions by Councillor Tambourides are a

breach of Paragraphs 3(1), 3(2b), 3(2c)(iii), 5, 6(a) and 6(b)(ii) of the

Members Code of Conduct.

1.1.2 The initial complaint recorded on the Allegation about Member

Conduct Form was dated 4

th

August 2010 and received by the Councilon 12th August 2010.

1.1.3 The Standards Sub-Committee (A), on 6th September 2010, conducted

an assessment of the complaint and identified the following relevant

paragraphs of the Code of Conduct, which may apply to the alleged

conduct:

Paragraph 3(1) - You must treat others with respect;

Paragraph 5 - You must not conduct yourself in a manner whichcould reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authorityinto disrepute;

Paragraph 6(b)(ii) - You must, when using or authorising the use byothers of the resources of your authority ensure that such resourcesare not used improperly for political purposes (including partypolitical purposes).

The Standards Sub-Committee (A) referred the matter to the

monitoring officer for investigation.

Page 3 of 20

8


11/46

1.2 Summary of investigation outcome

1.2.1 The legal adviser to Councillor Andreas Tambourides has raised a

jurisdiction point asserting that the Code of Conduct does not apply to

the circumstances of this complaint because his client was not acting

as a Member, see Appendix B, items 6 and 12.

It is my view that Councillor Andreas Tambourides was acting as a

Member and in particular his role as part of the Councils Conservative

Group in relation to the matters which are the subject of the complaint.

The reasons for my view are:

Councillor Andreas Tambourides sent the e-mail containing the linkto the London Daily News article dated 15th July 2010 to all

Conservative Councillors.

Councillor Andreas Tambourides sent the e-mail soon after the

controversial Council meeting on 13th July 2010 dealing with the

Members allowances scheme.

Councillor Andreas Tambourides stated that the purpose for

sending the article was to provide the Conservative Councillors withinformation that would be helpful to them to take decisions.

1.2.2 It is my view that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides

breached Paragraph 3(1) of the Members Code of Conduct (you must

treat others with respect) for the following reasons:

No attempt was made by Councillor Andreas Tambourides to check

if issues in the article about Councillor Kate Salinger were correct

before sending out the link to the article by e-mail.

The e-mail sent to all Conservative Councillors was sent in his

capacity as a Member..

Even though the e-mail was sent from a personal web based e-mail

account it was sent to all Conservative Councillors, including

Councillor Kate Salinger, with a link to an article that contained

unsubstantiated, unfavourable and inaccurate references to

Councillor Kate Salinger at a time when there had just been a

Page 4 of 20

9


12/46

This action appears to have been designed to cause

embarrassment to Councillor Kate Salinger, possibly with a view to

discredit her character at this sensitive time and possibly to

undermine her position within the Conservative Party.

1.2.3 It is my view that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides did

not breach paragraph 5 of the Members Code of Conduct (you must

not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded

as bringing your office or authority into disrepute) for the following

reasons:

There is no evidence to suggest that the conduct of Councillor

Andreas Tambourides brought the office or the authority into

disrepute.

There is no evidence that the actions of Councillor Andreas

Tambourides either reduced the publics confidence in his ability to

fulfil his role as a Member or adversely affected the reputation of

members generally, in being able to fulfil their role.

In relation to the complaint there was no evidence of dishonesty,

threatening or violent behaviour on the part of Councillor Andreas

Tambourides.

1.2.4 It is my view that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides

breached paragraph 6(b)(ii) of the Members Code of Conduct (you

must, when using or authorising the use by others of the resources of

your authority ensure that such resources are not used improperly for

political purposes (including party political purposes)) for the following

reasons:

The investigation by the Councils Infrastructure Team in

Commercial Services confirmed (Appendix B, item 9) that the

Councils internet connection was used to gain access to the web

Page 5 of 20

10


13/46

The timing of the e-mail suggests that the purpose of sending the e-

mail was most likely to harm Councillor Kate Salingers reputation

and to embarrass her and possibly influence the entire debate on

Members allowances taking place at the time.

The e-mail with the link to all Conservative Councillors was sent in

his capacity as a Member with the intention to damage Councillor

Kate Salinger politically and therefore Councillor Andreas

Tambourides made use of the Councils resources improperly for

political purposes.

2 Official details of Councillor Andreas Tambourides

2.1 Councillor Andreas Tambourides was elected as a Member of Barnet

Council in 1998 and subsequently in 2002, 2006 and 2010 for a term of

four years. He served as a Mayor in the municipal year 2005/6.

2.2 Councillor Andreas Tambourides currently serves on the Planning and

Environment Committee, the Standards Committee and the Chipping

Barnet Area Planning Sub Committee. He presides as the Chairman of

the East Area Planning Sub Committee and the Licensing Committee.

He is a substitute member on the Audit Committee and the Appeals

Committee.

2.3 Councillor Andreas Tambourides was provided a full information pack

on 7th May 2010 that included information on access to the Code of

Conduct for Members on the Councils website. All Members were

invited to a development session on the Code of Conduct on 7th July

2010 but the records show that Councillor Andreas Tambourides did

not attend. There is no record of Councillor Andreas Tambourides

attendance at the previous training on the Code of Conduct held in July

2007.

Page 6 of 20

11


14/46

3 The relevant legislation and protocols

3.1 The Council has adopted a Members Code of Conduct in which the

following paragraphs are included:

Paragraph 3(1) - You must treat others with respect;

Paragraph 5 - You must not conduct yourself in a manner which

could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority

into disrepute;

Paragraph 6(b)(ii) - You must, when using or authorising the use by

others of the resources of your authority ensure that such resources

are not used improperly for political purposes (including party

political purposes)

3.2 The complaint was assessed by and referred to the Councils

Monitoring Officer for investigation by the Standards Sub-Committee

(A) in terms of Section 57A (2) of the Local Government Act 2000.

4 The evidence gathered

4.1 Appendix A lists an account of oral evidence obtained.

4.2 Appendix B lists an account of documentary evidence obtained.

5 Summary of the material facts

5.1 The details of the complaint are set out in the Executive Summary

above.

5.2 The complainant, Councillor Kate Salinger, was interviewed (with herrepresentative Mr John Perry) on 12th January 2011. The responses to

Page 7 of 20

12


15/46

5.3 The subject member, Councillor Andreas Tambourides, was

interviewed (with his legal representative Mr Stephen Hocking) on 21st

January 2011. The responses to interview queries, where relevant, are

extracted under paragraph 7 below.

5.4 Barnet Councils Assistant Director - Legal, Ms Margaret Martinus, was

interviewed on 3rd February 2011 and 9th June 2011. The responses to

interview queries, where relevant, are extracted under paragraph 7

below.

6 Councillor Andreas Tambouridess additional submissions

6.1 Whilst there was no additional submission from Councillor Tambourides

his legal advisor, Mr Stephen Hocking, raised a preliminary issue in his

letter of 23 March 2011 in which he claimed that the Barnet Code of

Conduct applies only to acts of a councillor in an official capacity. My

view on this specific point is set out in 1.2.1 above.

6.2 Mr Hocking also included in his letter of the 23rd March four specific

questions which were all requested under Freedom of Information Act,

see Appendix B, item12. These representations were dealt with by the

Councils specialist officers on information governance.

6.3 Mr Hocking requested on 6th May 2011 a review of claimed exemptions

within the FOIA responses and that review was carried out and the

outcome reported to Mr Hocking on 19th May 2011, see Appendix B,

items 13 and 14.

7 Reasoning as to whether there have been failures to comply with

the Code of Conduct

Page 8 of 20

13


16/46

7.1 The approach to the investigation was to resolve the following queries

in relation to alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by the subject

member:

a) Establish the actions of Councillor Andreas Tambourides and

whether they fell within the scope of the Code of Conduct.

b) Establish whether the alleged conduct of Councillor Andreas

Tambourides can be construed as a lack of respect toward

Councillor Kate Salinger.

c) Establish whether the alleged conduct of Councillor Andreas

Tambourides brought the office or authority into disrepute.

d) Establish whether Councillor Andreas Tambourides used or allowed

others to use Council resources for political purposes.

7.2 If the findings and evidence demonstrated that the conduct of Councillor

Andreas Tambourides came within the scope of the Code of Conduct

and resulted in Councillor Kate Salinger not being treated with respect,

or that his actions brought the office or authority into disrepute or that

he used or allowed the use of Council resources for political purposes

then this would be contrary to the respective paragraphs (see section

3.1 above) of the Members Code of Conduct.

7.3 Evaluation of conduct in relation to treatment with respect

7.3.1 At the interview on 12th January 2011, Councillor Kate Salinger

Stated that there were two key paragraphs in the article (Appendix

B, item 2) that were relevant to the complaint she lodged. The first

is the paragraph 10 (of the 13 paragraph article) which stated that

A senior member of the Conservative party commented on the

stance of Conservative Councillor Kate Salinger who abstained in

the vote to increase the allowance of members despite the groups

support for the motion, and said that she was already a marginal

figure and her actions have ostracised her entirely and she is now

history. The second is the paragraph 11 which stated that

Page 9 of 20

14


17/46

Stated that at the time when the link to article was sent in the e-mail

she was the Chairman of the Childrens Services Overview and

Scrutiny Sub-Committee and member of the Corporate Parenting

Advisory Panel and therefore was not consigned to history. She

further stated that this information is in the public domain and

Councillor Andreas Tambourides would have been aware of this.

Stated that the statement in paragraph 11 of the article is incorrect

and that she has never been nor was subject to any contact with the

Councils lawyers and that her conduct has never been in question

in the past. Further she informed me that on 9th August 2010 The

London Daily News subsequently published an apology for this

error in the article; see Appendix B, item 4.

Stated that the article (i.e. link to the article) was sent to the

Conservative Councillors and the others knowing that the article

contained unsubstantiated statements which were designed to slur

her character, honesty and integrity.

7.3.2 At the interview on 21st January 2011, Councillor Andreas Tambourides

Stated that he had read the article when it was published on 15th

July 2010; see Appendix B, item 2.

Stated that he had sent the link to the article by e-mail, on 15th July

2010, to all Conservative Councillors, including Councillor Kate

Salinger; see Appendix B, item 3.

Stated that he could not recall sending the information to officers or

any other person.

Stated that the reason for sending the article to the Conservative

Councillors was to provide them with this information so that it

would be helpful to them to take decisions.

Page 10 of 20

15


18/46

Stated that the e-mail was sent to Councillor Kate Salinger for

information but, following the advice from his legal advisor, would

not explain as to what effect he had anticipated by sending the

article to Councillor Kate Salinger.

Stated that there was no intention to denigrate and ridicule


Stated that he had not received any responses to his e-mail

containing the link to The London Daily News article.

Stated that he was aware of the apology posted on the website by

The London Daily News.

Stated that the recipients of his original e-mail on 15th July 2010

were not alerted to the apology from The London daily News.

Stated that he had presumed the article to be accurate when asked

if he had checked whether the article contained any misleading or

inaccurate statements before sending the link by e-mail. However,

he would not explain when asked if he thought that by sending the

link to an article containing possible inaccurate statements about

the recipient could be considered intimidating and therefore seen as

bullying.

7.3.3 Before the scheduled interview with Councillor Andreas Tambourides I

received a letter dated 17th January 2011 from his legal advisor, Mr

Stephen Hocking, who was of the opinion that:

The e-mail falls completely outside Andreas Tambouridess role as

a Councillor and the investigation should be stopped on that

ground; see Appendix B, item 6, paragraph 1.

The e-mail in question was not signed in the name of Councillor

Tambourides it was signed by Andreas Tambourides as a private

individual; see Appendix B, item 6, paragraph 2a.

I sent a letter to Mr Hocking on 18 January informing him that it was

my intention to continue with my investigation and interview, see

Appendix B, item 7.

Page 11 of 20

16


19/46

7.3.4 At the interviews on 3rd February 2011 and 9th June 2011 (see

Appendix A, items 3) Ms Margaret Martinus, the Assistant Director

Legal, confirmed that

as far as she was aware Councillor Kate Salinger had not been

contacted by Council lawyers in relation to the Councillors conduct.

neither she nor anyone in the Legal Services, as far as she was

aware, had been contacted by Councillor Andreas Tambourides in

relation to the article in question.

7.3.5 Facts established include the following:

Councillor Andreas Tambourides confirmed sending the link to The

London Daily News article dated 15th July 2010 [entitled Barnet

Tories stand firm on pay vote cost neutral, no increase to tax

payer] to all Conservative Councillors, including Councillor Kate

Salinger; see Appendix B, items 2 & 3.

Councillor Andreas Tambourides confirmed that he did not send the

link to the apology published by The London Daily News on 9th

August 2010.

Councillor Kate Salinger did not receive any apology from

Councillor Andreas Tambourides for circulating the link to the article

dated 15th July 2010 containing the incorrect statement, see

Appendix B, item 11.

At the time when the e-mail linking article was sent Councillor Kate

Salinger was the Chairman of the Childrens Services Overview and

Scrutiny Sub-Committee and member of the Corporate Parenting

Advisory Panel.

The London Daily News posted an apology on their website in

relation to the eleventh paragraph in the article.

The London Daily News article included statements, at the tenth

and the eleventh paragraphs of the article, which were personal

about a Councillor and not just about issues being debated at the

time by the Council.

Page 12 of 20

17


20/46

Councillor Andreas Tambourides is a long standing councillor,

elected in 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2010. He served as a mayor in the

municipal year 2005/6.

Councillor Andreas Tambourides plays a prominent role as a

councillor and at the time he sent the link to the article in his e-mail

he served on the Audit Committee, the Planning and Environment

Committee, the Standards Committee and presided as the

Chairman of the Chipping Barnet Area Planning Sub Committee

and the Licensing Committee.

The e-mail with the link was sent soon after the controversial

Council meeting on 13th July 2010 dealing with the Members

allowances scheme.

Councillor Andreas Tambourides said that the e-mail was sent to

Conservative Councillors to help them to take decisions.

7.3.6 Conclusion evaluation of you must treat others with respect

It is my view that Councillor Kate Salinger was not treated with respect

by Councillor Andreas Tambourides. No attempt was made by

Councillor Andreas Tambourides to check if the issues in the article

about Councillor Kate Salinger were correct before sending out the link

by e-mail. For the reasons stated previously Councillor Andreas

Tambourides sent the e-mail in his capacity as a Member. Even though

the e-mail was sent from a personal web based e-mail account it was

sent to all Conservative Councillors with a link to an article that

contained unsubstantiated, unfavourable and incorrect references to

Councillor Kate Salinger at a time when there had just been a

controversial Council meeting dealing with the Members allowances

scheme. Councillor Kate Salinger was the only Member of the

Conservative Group who abstained rather than vote for the increase in

the allowances at the Council meeting on 13th July 2011; see Appendix

B, item 10. This action could reasonably be regarded to have been

designed to cause embarrassment to Councillor Kate Salinger, possibly

Page 13 of 20

18


21/46

with a view to discredit her character at a sensitive time and possibly to

undermine her position within the Conservative Party.

7.4 Evaluation of conduct that brings office or authority into disrepute

7.4.1 At the interview, Councillor Kate Salinger stated that Councillor

Tambourides should have checked the accuracy of the statements

referring to her before sending out the article.

7.4.2 At the interview, Councillor Andreas Tambourides stated that there was

no need to check the accuracy of the article as he presumed the article

to be correct. He further added that there was no intention on his part

to ridicule Councillor Kate Salinger when he sent the e-mail to the

Conservative Councillors.

7.4.3 In relation to the complaint being investigated there was no evidence of

dishonesty, threatening or violent behaviour on the part of Councillor

Andreas Tambourides.

7.4.4 Conclusion evaluation of you must not conduct yourself in a manner

which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority

into disrepute

It is my view that the conduct of Councillor Andreas Tambourides did

not bring the office or the authority into disrepute. There is no evidence

that actions of Councillor Andreas Tambourides either reduced the

publics confidence in his ability to fulfil his role as a member or

adversely affected the reputation of members generally, in being able

to fulfil their role.

7.5 Evaluation of whether Councillor Andreas Tambourides used or

allowed others to use Council resources for political purpose

7.5.1 At the interview on 12th

January 2011, Councillor Kate Salinger statedthat Councillor Andreas Tambourides sent the link to the article in order

Page 14 of 20

19


22/46

7.5.2 At the interview on 21st January 2011, Councillor Andreas Tambourides

Stated that he sent the e-mail to all the Conservative Councillors

from home.

Stated that he did not use the Councils internet to send the e-mail

from his web based e-mail account.

Stated that he had sent the link to the article by e-mail, on 15th July

2010, to all Conservative Councillors, including Councillor Kate

Salinger; see Appendix B, item 3.

Stated that the reason for sending the article to the Conservative

Councillors was to provide them with this information so that it

would be helpful to them to take decisions.

7.5.3 The investigation by the Infrastructure Team of Commercial Services of

Barnet Council confirmed that the e-mail received by Councillor Kate

Salinger on 15 July 2010, which contained the link to the article and

sent by Councillor Andreas Tambourides, was sent through the

Councils internet connection; see Appendix B, item 9.

7.5.4 Facts established include the following

The e-mail in question, which was sent from a private web based e-

mail account, was sent from Barnet Councils internet connection.

The e-mail with the link was sent soon after the controversial

Council meeting on 13th July 2010 dealing with the Members

allowances scheme.

The e-mail was sent to all Conservative Councillors.

Councillor Andreas Tambourides said that the e-mail was sent to

Conservative Councillors to help them to take decisions.

7.5.5 Conclusion evaluation of you must, when using or authorising the

use by others of the resources of your authority ensure that such

Page 15 of 20

20


23/46

It is my view that Councillor Andreas Tambourides sent the e-mail in his

capacity as a Member and used the Council resources for personal

political purposes. The absence of the title Councillor in the e-mail

when it was signed off with Andreas does not appear to imply he was

acting outside his capacity as a Member particularly when he was

communicating with Conservative Councillors. Signing off with ones

first name when communicating with fellow Councillors does not appear

unusual and does not imply acting outside his capacity as a Member.

The investigation confirmed that the Councils internet connection was

used to gain access to a web based e-mail account to send the e-mail

with the link to the article. The e-mail was sent during the period when

there were Council meetings discussing Members allowances and it

could reasonably be regarded that the purpose of sending the e-mail

was most likely to harm Councillor Kate Salingers reputation, to

embarrass her and undermine her position within the Conservative

Party.

8 Finding

8.1 It is my view that Councillor Andreas Tambourides has breached

Paragraphs 3(1) and 6(b)(ii) but not Paragraph 5 of the Members Code

of Conduct.

Page 16 of 20

21


24/46

Append ix A

Schedule of oral evidence taken into account

Evidence Source

1 Interview Notes -

Complainant

Councillor Kate Salinger meeting of 12th

January 2011.

2 Interview Notes Subject

Member

Councillor Andreas Tambourides meeting

of 21st January 2011.

3 Interview Notes Barnet

Council Head of Legal

Services

Ms Margaret Martinus meetings of 3rd

February 2011 and 9th June 2011.

Page 17 of 20

22


25/46

Append ix B

Schedule of documentary evidence taken into account

Evidence Source

1 The Complaint Allegation about Member Conduct Form

dated 4th August 2010 submitted by


2 The article in The London

Daily News dated 15th July

2010

Councillor Kate Salinger - with the Allegation

about Member Conduct Form dated 4th

August 2010.

3 E-mail dated 15th July 2010

from Councillor Andreas

Tambourides

Councillor Kate Salinger - dated 13th January

2011.

4 The apology from The

London Daily News dated

9th August 2011

Councillor Kate Salinger link by e-mail 13th

January 2011.

5 Potential Breach of Code of

Conduct

Decision of Standards Sub Committee (A) of

6th September 2010.

6 Letter dated 17 January

2011 raising jurisdiction

point from legal advisor of

Councillor Andreas

Tambourides

Mr Stephen Hocking dated 17th January

2011.

7 Reply to legal advisor of

Councillor Andreas

Tambourides

My reply - dated 18th January 2011.

8 Confirmation of e-mail from

Councillor A Tambourides

A: Councillor Kate Salinger dated 13th

January 2011.

B: Councillor Brain Salinger - dated 24th

January 2011.

C: Councillor Graham Old dated 22nd

January 2011.

Page 18 of 20

23


26/46

Evidence Source

9 Barnet Councils Corporate

Services Investigation

Report InfrastructureTeam Leader

Mr Andy Goddard report dated 27th

January 2011.

10 Council decision on 13th

July 2010 on members

allowances

Council Decision 13th July 2010.

11 Councillor Kate Salinger

confirms no apology from

Councillor A Tambourides

Councillor Kate Salinger dated 10th

February 2011.

12 Letter dated 23 March 2011

raising jurisdiction point.

Mr Stephen Hocking

13 Letter dated 6th May 2011

requesting review of FOIA

response.

Mr Stephen Hocking

14 Letter dated 19th May 2011

result of review.

Ms Sian Hughes

Page 19 of 20

24


27/46

Page 20 of 20

Append ix C

Chronology of events

Event Date

Council Elections 6th May 2010

Councillor Kate Salinger and

Councillor Andreas Tambourides

elected.

Information Pack with Code of

Conduct distributed to Members

7th May 2010

Member Development Session 7th July 2010

Council Meeting vote on Allowance

Payments to Councillors

13th July 2010

Article Published in The London Daily

News

14th July 2010

Article forwarded by Councillor A

Tambourides

15th July 2010 at 12.00

The London Daily News publishes

apology to Councillor Kate Salinger

9th August 2010

Council Meeting vote on Allowance

Payments to Councillors

14th September 2010

25


28/46

Enclosure B(i)

Protocols for the Determination following investigation of anAllegation that a Member may have breached the Barnet Code

of Conduct

Interpretation

In these protocols and the associated Determinations Criteria:

APE is the Adjudication Panel for England

assessment means the assessment of an allegation that a Member may have breachedthe Barnet Code of Conduct.

the Code or the Code of Conduct means the Barnet Members Code of Conduct asadopted by the Council on 26 June 2007.

complainant means the person who has made the complaint.

consideration meeting means a meeting held following completion of the investigationreport to consider whether a hearing is required and, if so, matters pertaining to itsarrangement.

Democratic Services Officer means the Officer responsible for administrating the

meeting, including taking a note of proceedings and providing constitutional advice.

Elected Member means a person who is a member of the Council of the London Boroughof Barnet who is appointed to the Standards Committee.

Ethical Standards Officer or ESO means a person appointed by the Standards Boardfor England to conduct investigations under section 57 of the Local Government Act 2000.

hearing means a meeting of a Standards Sub-committee to hear evidence and make adetermination following an investigation into an allegation that a member may havebreached the Code of Conduct.

Independent Member means a person who is not a Member or an Officer of any relevantauthority and is appointed to the Standards Committee.

Investigator means the person appointed by the Monitoring Officer to conduct aninvestigation into the alleged breach of the Code of Conduct and to report on the findingsresulting from that investigation. It may also include the Head of internal Audit and EthicalGovernance who in practice appoints the Investigator on behalf of the Monitoring Officerand would supervise the investigation.

Legal Adviser means the Officer responsible for providing legal advice to the Standards

Sub-committee. This may be the Deputy Monitoring Officer or another legally qualifiedofficer of the Council.


29/46

the Monitoring Officer is a statutory position currently held by the Director of CorporateGovernance. All references to the Monitoring Officer may include the Deputy MonitoringOfficer or another representative when s/he is acting on his behalf in respect of thefunctions assigned to the statutory role.

relevant parties means the subject Member, the complainant, the Investigator and any

others who need to be kept informed.

review means the review of an assessment of an allegation that a Member may havebreached the Barnet Code of Conduct.

SBE is the Standards Board for England

Sub-committee means a Standards Sub-committee considering a report on aninvestigation in respect of allegations that a Member may have breached the Code ofConduct.

subject Member means the Councillor, or other member of a Council committee, aboutwhom the allegation being considered by the Standards Sub-committee has been made.

General Issues

ConfidentialityFor a Standards Sub-committee meeting convened for the purpose of undertaking aninitial consideration of the Investigators report, the provisions of schedule 12A to the 1972Act apply (unlike to a Standards Sub-committee making an initial assessment or a reviewof an initial assessment). Therefore, there must be public notice of the meeting and thebusiness to be conducted there.

The Standards Sub-committee may be asked to exclude the press and public and considerthe report as exempt and, if this is the case, the report will not be made public before themeeting. As with all exempt information, the Sub-committee must decide whether thepublic interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing theinformation. In line with SBE guidance, in most cases, the public interest in transparentdecision-making would outweigh the subject members interest in limiting publication of anallegation that has not yet been determined.

In the interests of natural justice, the Standards Sub-committee meeting conducting thehearing will normally take place entirely in public and all papers will be made publiclyavailable in the normal manner for Council committees. Although, again the provisions ofschedule 12A to the 1972 Act apply and the business may be conducted as exempt ifthere is reason to do so and the Sub-committee so decides.

Members of the Sub-committee should not discuss the case with anyone who is not amember of the Sub-committee appointed to determine the case; either before or after themeeting. Discussions with other Members of the Sub-committee should only take place atthe formal meeting. This does not preclude discussion in general terms for training orother business within the terms of reference of the Standards Committee.


30/46

Similarly, Officers should not discuss the particulars of the case with anyone else otherthan for professional purposes until it is in the public domain and should then respond toenquiries from press and public appropriately.

Member Conflict of InterestMembers sitting on the Sub-committee must be vigilant about any personal and prejudicial

interests that may arise under the Code of Conduct and deal with them appropriately. Ifthere is an interest, or sufficient reason to believe that an interest may arise, the Memberconcerned should normally decline to sit on the Sub-committee and a substitute will beappointed.

Any Member (elected or independent) who is one of the following should not participate inthe determination process:

A complainant

Someone closely associated with a complainant

A potential witness or victim relating to the allegation made by the complainant

Someone closely associated (through personal friendship or otherwise) with thesubject Member (ie beyond a normal Council colleague relationship)

Someone closely associated with a witness

Members must consider whether they have a potential interest at all stages of thedeterminations process but the pre-hearing summary is the key stage to check for this.

Pre-determinationMembers sitting on a Sub-committee must take care not to be influenced, or to be seen tobe influenced, by anything outside the papers and advice presented to them at the

consideration meeting or determination hearing. Examples of other potential influencesinclude, but are not limited to, media coverage and previous knowledge and experience ofthe subject Member.

Officer Conflict of InterestAny Officer who has previously advised the subject Member, or the complainant, aboutany of the issues giving rise to the complaint should not normally take part in thedetermination in any way; this includes not advising the Standards Sub-committee orattending the hearing other than perhaps as a member of the public.

Officers should not advise or otherwise take part in the process when they have an interest

in the case which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts wouldreasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the judgement of the Officerin carrying out his/her role.

The Monitoring Officer will not normally take a specific role in the process (but is notprecluded from doing so) and will instead normally provide a guiding hand to the wholeprocess. If any Officer is unable to fulfil a role because of conflict with a previous roletaken in the process, or any other conflict of interest, or absence, then establisheddeputising arrangements would be implemented.


31/46

Composition of the Standards Sub-committeeStandards Sub-committees shall comprise three members; being an Independent Memberas Chairman, a second Independent Member as Vice-chairman and an Elected Member.A Standards Sub-committee will be selected primarily on the basis of availability androtation. Substitute Members may sit on a Sub-committee where a standing Sub-committee member is unavailable but substitutes must be like for like and must not change

the make-up of the Sub-committee (e.g. another Independent Member must substitute foran Independent Member and can not substitute for an Elected Member).

Point of contactThe Governance Manager will usually be the point of contact for the subject Member andthe complainant for the duration of the process.

Assessment and Investigation

Assessment

Assessment of the allegation would take place in accordance with the AssessmentProtocols.

InvestigationIf the Sub-committee making the assessment orders an investigation they may direct thatthis be conducted by the Monitoring Officer or ask the SBE to appoint an Ethical StandardsOfficer. The investigation by the Monitoring Officer will always return to the StandardsCommittee but, while the Standards Committee will be informed of the outcome of aninvestigation by the SBE, the ESO may or may not ask for the Standards Committee tomake a determination.

Consideration meeting

A Standards Sub-committee meeting with a membership that does not include anymembers who made the initial assessment of the allegation, or a review of thatassessment, will usually be convened to consider the investigators report for one or moreof the following purposes:

If the Investigators finding is that there was no failure to comply with the Code: to decide whether or not to accept that finding.

If the Investigators finding is that there was a failure to comply with breach of theCode, or, if the Investigators no breach finding is not accepted: to consider any potential issues that may arise during the pre-hearing process; to consider how to manage any anonymity granted to complainants or requested

for witnesses; to consider whether the Standards Sub-committee should hear the case or

whether the APE should hear the case.

The meeting considering the investigators report in this way will be conducted entirelyseparately from the meeting at which the hearing is conducted. However, the StandardsSub-committee making the consideration will usually have the membership as that

intended to undertake the determination hearing.


32/46

If at this stage, the Standards Committee decides that it accepts a finding that there wasno failure to comply with the Code then no hearing will be held and such a decision noticewill be issued (see below). In all other circumstances the case will proceed to a hearing.

Pre-hearing Processes

Setting a date for the hearingA meeting of a Standards Sub-committee to conduct a hearing will be arranged withinthree months of the date on which the Monitoring Officers report on the outcome of theinvestigation was completed, or, within three months of the date that the Monitoring Officerreceived the ESOs report. It must also take place at least 14 days after the subjectmember receives a copy of the report from the Monitoring Officer.

If the matter is not heard within three months of the completion of the investigation reportdue to unavoidable delay then it must be heard as soon as possible.

The aim will be for the Sub-committee to complete a hearing in one sitting and theappropriateness of evening or daytime meeting will be considered in relation to thecomplexity of the case and other relevant factors. If a case has to considered in more thanone sitting these will scheduled as close to each other as possible.

Officers will propose a date for the hearing to the subject Member in consultation with theChairman of the Sub-committee.

Consulting the subject MemberWhen being advised of the proposed date of the hearing, the subject Member will also benotified of the hearing procedure and advised about his/her rights. S/he will also be askedto indicate whether s/he:

will attend the hearing;

wants to be represented at the hearing by a solicitor, barrister or any other person;

disagrees with any of the findings of fact in the investigators report and to providereasons for any such disagreements;

wants to give evidence at the hearing, whether verbally or in writing;

wants to call relevant witnesses to give evidence at the hearing;

wants any part of the hearing to take place in private and for what reason;

wants any part of the investigation report or other written evidence to be withheld

from the press and public and for what reason;

Consultation with other partiesViews will be sought from all parties as to whether they are content that the hearing shouldtake place in public and if there is dissent in this regard then legal advice will be sought.The following should be ascertained prior to the hearing:

any disagreements on points of fact in the investigation report;

the relevance of any such disagreements to the matters on which the Sub-committee will be deciding;

whether evidence about any such disagreements will need to be heard ;

This consultation will be conducted primarily by Officers and through writtencorrespondence.


33/46

Investigators reportThe relevant parties will already have had the opportunity to comment on the Investigatorsdraft report before it was finalised but, once it has been agreed that the case shouldproceed to a full hearing, a copy of the final report will be sent to the subject Member toenable him/her to prepare for the hearing

Clarification of witnessesThe relevant parties will be asked to provide outlines of the evidence their witnessesintend to give and from these the Standards Sub-committee will decide how manywitnesses may reasonably be required.

Pre-hearing summaryAt least two weeks before date set for the hearing, the Standards Sub-committee willreceive a pre-hearing summary providing the following:

the date, time and place of the hearing

a summary of the allegation; an outline of the main facts of the case that are agreed;

an outline of the main facts of the case that are not agreed;

whether the subject Member will be attending the hearing and what his/herrepresentation will be

a list of proposed witnesses, subject to the Sub-committees power to rule on this atthe hearing.

Agenda for the hearingThe agenda and papers will be despatched at least five clear days before the meeting.

The papers will generally include a report summarising and contextualising the complaintand advising the Sub-committee as to the options before it. This report will only containfactual information and not opinion. It may contain reference to some of the other issuescovered below where they have been identified as potentially applying.

As an appendix to this report will be the investigator report concluding with his/her opinionand appended to this will be any documentary evidence. The agenda will also containthese determinations protocols and their associated criteria.

There will not normally be any other business on the agenda for the Sub-committee

meeting.

At the Hearing

Persons PresentThe meeting will commence in public even if there is an item to consider the exclusion ofthe press and public on the agenda at some point. Those present will include: the threemembers of the Standards Sub-committee, the Legal Adviser, the Democratic ServicesOfficer, any other agreed officer(s) representing the Monitoring Officer and theinvestigator.


34/46

The subject Member, the complainant and any witnesses are also likely to be present butthe hearing can take place in the absence of any of these if the Sub-committee so decides.The subject Member may be represented or accompanied during the hearing by a solicitor,counsel, or, with the permission of the Standards sub-committee, by another person.

Conduct of the hearing

The Chairman will open the meeting and ask the Monitoring Officer, or his representative,to introduce the report. S/he will then ask for any preliminary legal advice and then leadthe Sub-committee through any procedural matters. Legal or procedural advice may beoffered or requested at any time and the hearing may be adjourned by the Chairman atany time to take legal advice in private. However the substance of any legal advice shouldsubsequently be shared with the Subject member (if present) and others present.Members of the Sub-committee may question any of the people involved, includingwitnesses, at any stage.

The Standards Sub-committee must conduct itself in a demonstrably fair, independent andpolitically impartial manner. The need to maintain public confidence in the Councils

ethical standards must be borne in mind. All concerned should treat the hearing processwith respect and with regard to potential seriousness of the outcome for the subjectMember, for the Council and for the public interest.

The hearing conducted by the Standards Sub-committee is not a court of law and does nothear evidence under oath. Decisions will be made on the balance of probabilities and notthat of beyond reasonable doubt. The determinations criteria should be referred tothroughout the process but particularly in determining breach and applying sanction.

DisruptionAppropriate warning will be given in the case of any disruption. If disruption persists thenan adjournment may be called and the individual concerned may be ordered to leave. Ifthe person causing a disruption is the representative of the subject member thenpermission for such representation may be withdrawn.

Hearing the evidenceThe Sub-committee may not need to consider any evidence other than the investigatorsreport (or ESOs report) and supporting documents. It may agree to hear witnesses ifmore evidence is required or if the witness evidence relates to findings of fact on the reportthat are disputed. Witnesses as to character are also permitted but will be encouraged topresent their evidence in writing where possible. Questions to witnesses will normally be

directed through the Chairman.

The Investigator will introduce his/her report, present evidence, challenge contraryevidence and be available to answer questions. If there is any disagreement aboutfindings of fact in the Investigators report then the Investigator will be invited to makerepresentation to support the findings of fact in the report, this may include calling anynecessary supporting witnesses.


35/46

The subject Member will then be given the opportunity to make representations to supporthis/her version of the facts and, with the Sub-committees permission, may call anynecessary witnesses to give evidence. The subject Member will be allowed to presenthis/her case as s/he sees fit as long as the Standards Sub-committee views it asreasonable within its own procedures. The Standards Sub-committee may limit thenumber of witnesses as long as such a decision is taken reasonably and fairly. The

Investigator shall be allowed to challenge any evidence.

Evidence will be presented by the relevant parties, or their representatives, and witnessescalled as agreed prior to the meeting. New disagreements over factual matters and newevidence will only be allowed to be raised at the hearing in exceptional circumstances. Ifthe subject Member disagrees with any relevant fact, without having given prior notice, thesub-committee will invite an explanation as to why this was not raised earlier and considerwhether to allow the subject Member to continue in accordance with the determinationscriteria.

The subject Member will be invited to give any relevant reasons why the Sub-committee

should decide that s/he has not failed to follow the code. The subject Member shall beasked to make any final relevant points in conclusion.

Making the determinationOnce the presentation of evidence is concluded, the Sub-committee will consider it inprivate, whether by adjourning to another room or by asking the subject Member, theInvestigator and any witnesses to leave the room. The Monitoring Officer, legal adviserand Democratic Services Officer will remain with the Sub-committee.

In private, the Sub-committee will then make a determination as to whether or not therehas been a breach of the Code of Conduct. The determination will be made in accordancewith the agreed determination criteria and based on the balance of probabilities. The Sub-committee will re-join the relevant parties and the Chairman will announce thedetermination in respect of whether or not there was failure to comply with the Code.

If the decision is that there was no failure to comply with the Code then the subjectMember will be asked whether or not s/he is content for the decision to be publicised. TheSub-committee will also announce whether or not it wishes to make any recommendationsto the Council with a view to promoting high standards of conduct amongst Members.

Applying Sanction

If the decision is that there was failure to comply with the Code then the Sub-committeewill invite representations as to whether a sanction should be applied and what form anysanction should take. The subject Member will be particularly invited to present anyfactors in mitigation of his/her behaviour. The Sub-committee will again deliberate inprivate as to the application of sanction in accordance with the determinations criteria.

If at this stage, the sub-committee concludes that the sanctions open to it are insufficientthen it can seek to make a referral to the APE although generally such a possibility shouldhave been identified in advance and an indication been obtained from APE as to itswillingness to accept such a referral.

The Sub-committee will re-join the relevant parties and announce whether or not anysanction will be applied and, if so, what it will be. They may also announce anyrecommendations to the Council.


36/46

DecisionsAll decisions will be clearly communicated to the Democratic Services Officer prior to theconclusion of any private session. The Chairman will convey decisions to those presentwhen the Standards Sub-committee rejoins the others attending the hearing.

After the Hearing

MinutesFormal minutes of the meeting will be produced. If any part of the hearing is exempt, thenotes taken by the Democratic Services Officer will be kept for six years in accordancewith the Councils established records management policy for the notes of committeemeetings of a similar confidential nature. If the hearing is wholly public then the notes willbe disposed of once the deadline for appeal has passed.

Decision Notice

A full written decision will be sent to the subject Member, the complainant and the SBE assoon as possible and certainly within two weeks of the hearing. In addition, a summary ofthe decision and the reasons for it will be published in at least one newspaper in theborough that is independent of the Council. In accordance with normal council policy, thenotice will usually be published in both the Barnet Press and the Times group newspapers.A summary of the decision will also be published on Barnet Online (see exceptions tonormal publication below).

In all cases where a breach is found the decision notice must:

give the date of the hearing and of the investigation report

give the membership of the Standards Sub-committee

state that the Member failed to follow the Code

cite the relevant section or sections of the Code

outline what happened

give reasons for the Standards Sub-committees decision (whether to imposesanction, or to take no action, or to refer to the APE)

state that the Member may appeal against the findings

Decision Notice no breachIf the finding of the Sub-committee (whether at the consideration stage or at a hearing) is

that there was no failure to comply then a decision notice saying this and giving reasonswill be issued. However, the subject Member may prohibit normal publication of such afinding.

Decision Notice breach and no sanctionIn these cases the decision notice will state that the Member failed to follow the Code butthat no action needs to be taken and why.

Decision Notice breach and sanctionIn these cases the decision notice will state that the Member failed to follow the code andmust also explain the sanction imposed.


37/46

Referral to the APEIf the case is referred to the APE then a decision notice will not be produced. The decisionwill be public but not publicised as outlined above.

Other Issues that may arise

Outside of JurisdictionIt may be that matters outside of the Committees jurisdiction may be raised and theStandards Sub-committee may direct Officers to advise the subject Member or witnessesof the appropriate avenue(s) to pursue them, if this has not already been done.

Withdrawal of complaintsIf a complainant has asked to withdraw his/her complaint subsequent to the assessment,this will be noted in the introductory report to the investigation and the Standards Sub-committee can take this into account as one factor in their consideration or determination.

AnonymityIn accordance with the Assessment Protocols and criteria, a fully anonymous complaint(i.e. where there is no name on the allegation when submitted) would only have beenreferred for investigation or other action if it included documentary or photographicevidence indicating an exceptionally serious or significant matter (see assessmentcriteria). The anonymous nature of the complaint can be considered at the hearing.

If a complainant included their name with the complaint, but made a request for anonymity,the Standards Sub-committee making the assessment would have considered this requestalongside the substance of the complaint. If anonymity was granted, the Standards Sub-committee making the determination would have to include consideration of how this

would be maintained, probably at the consideration meeting prior to the hearing.

If there is a request for anonymity for any witnesses this request will have to be consideredby the Standards Sub-committee in accordance with the criteria.

Complaints about Members of more than one authorityIf the complaint concerns a subject Member who is a member of another authority coveredby the local authority Code of Conduct the decision would have been taken at assessmentas to whether this authority would hear the case. Any additional considerations woulddepend on the Regulations on joint-working (pending).

Information relating to the complaintSome information relating to the complaint may be confidential and, if so, will not normallybe disclosed. Nonetheless, any written request for information made to the authority aboutthis matter will be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the law. This includesany obligations imposed on the authority under the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedomof Information Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and with reference to therestrictions set out in 63 of the Local Government Act 2000 as modified by Regulation 12of the Standards Committee (England) Regulations.


38/46

Enclosure B(ii)

Standards Committee Determinations Criteria

Making determinations and applying sanctions against established criteria ensuresthoroughness and protects Standards Committee members from accusations ofidiosyncratic or inconsistent decision making and/or bias. The criteria below are

based on SBE guidance as informed by local circumstances and priorities. They aredesigned to ensure fairness for both the complainant and the subject Member.

A Making a determination

The Standards Sub-committee must reach a conclusion as to whether the findings ofthe investigation presented do, or do not, demonstrate a breach of the Code ofConduct. If it does not demonstrate a breach then this shall be the determination ofthe Sub-committee.

If it does demonstrate a breach a decision must be made as to whether any sanctionshould be applied and, if so, whether the appropriate sanction falls within the powersof the Standards Sub-committee, or, whether the case should be referred to theAdjudication Panel for England (APE), in accordance with the guidance on thecircumstances in which APE would consider accepting a reference and preferablyhaving sought an indication for the APE as to their willingness to accept the case.

Also, there may be other issues for the Standards Sub-committee to consider inconducting a hearing, such as the absence of the subject Member or a key witness,anonymity for complainants, or, a request by the complainant to withdraw the

complaint, and these must be dealt with according to the criteria in section E.

If the subject Member disagrees with any relevant fact in the Investigators reportwithout having given prior notice of the disagreement, s/he must give good reasonsfor not having done so. New evidence will not normally be allowed to be presentedat the hearing except in exceptional circumstances. It will usually have to bedemonstrated that the evidence had only recently become available and could nothave been produced during the pre-hearing process.

The committee will consider any explanation for the issue not having been raisedearlier and either:

a) continue with the hearing relying on the information in the Investigatorsreport; or

b) allow the subject Member to make representations about the issue andinvite the investigator to respond and call any witness as necessary if s/hecan; or

c) adjourn for the Investigator to gather evidence and perhaps arrangesuitable witnesses.

Such a decision as to how to proceed will be based on:

the importance of the point of fact to the determination as to breach the seriousness of the disagreement

the apparent validity of the reason for non-prior disclosure


39/46

the overall co-operativeness of the subject Member with the pre-hearingprocess

B - Is there potential breach of the Code?

Determination as to whether there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct will be

made based on the strength of evidence and on the balance of probabilities. Thusthe determination should be made from concluding that

a) the alleged behaviour occurred; andb) the alleged behaviour constitutes a breach of the Code of Conduct.

C - Sanctions

When deciding on a sanction the Standards Sub-committee should ensure that it isreasonable and proportionate to the subject Members behaviour. The Standards

Sub-committee will also keep in mind an aim of upholding and improving thestandard of conduct expected of members of the Council and its committees as partof the process of fostering public confidence in local democracy. Thus the sanctionapplied should be designed both to discourage, or prevent, the subject Member fromfuture non-compliance and to discourage similar action by others. Consideration canalso be given to any recent case law or guidance published by the SBE orAdjudication Panel for England.

The following should be considered together with any relevant circumstances arisingfrom the case:

the intention of the subject Member;

the subject Members awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code ofConduct and their relation to the incident;

whether the subject Member obtained advice from Officers prior to the incidentand whether any advice given was acted on, or ignored, in good faith

any breach of trust;

whether there has been any financial impropriety, such as improper expenseclaims or procedural irregularities;

the result of the failure to follow the Code of Conduct;

the potential results of the failure to follow the Code of Conduct;

the seriousness of the incident; whether or not the subject Member accepts s/he was at fault;

whether the subject Member has apologised to the relevant individuals;

whether the subject Member has been warned or reprimanded in any way forsimilar misconduct previously;

whether or not the Standards Sub-committee is of the view that subjectMember is likely to repeat the behaviour;

whether the subject Member has failed to follow the Code of Conductpreviously;

how the sanction will be carried out, e.g. the timing of any sanction (see

below) or how any training or mediation will be provided; any resources or funding implications;


40/46

whether restricting access to the councils premises or equipment wouldunnecessarily restrict the subject Members ability to carry out his/herresponsibilities.

Mitigating/Aggravating factorsIn applying sanction but not in determining breach, the Standards Sub-committee willalso take into account factors including but not limited to:

Mitigating Aggravating

the Members previous good recordof service

substantiated evidence that theMembers actions have beenaffected by ill-health

the Member having had an honestlyheld, although mistaken, view thatthe action concerned did notconstitute a failure to follow the Codeof Conduct; particularly if such a viewwas formed after taking appropriateadvice

the Member recognising that s/hehas failed to follow the Code

the Member co-operating in rectifying

the effects of the failure to complywith the Code

dishonesty

continuing to deny the facts despiteclear contrary evidence

seeking unfairly to blame otherpeople

failing to heed appropriate advice, orwarnings, or, previous findings of afailure to follow the provisions of theCode

persisting with a pattern ofbehaviour that involves repeatedlyfailing to abide by provisions of theCode

the Member apologising to affectedpersons where appropriate

if the breach was self-reported

full compliance with the Code sincethe events giving rise to thedetermination

if the actions, despite involving abreach of the Code, had somebeneficial effect for the public

Sanctions available to the Sub-committeeIf it is determined that there was a breach of the Code of Conduct and that thebreach warrants the imposition of a sanction then the following sanctions may beapplied:

1) censure of that Member.


41/46

2) restriction for a period not exceeding six months of that Members access tothe premises of the authority or that Members use of the resources of theauthority, provided that those restrictions meet both the followingrequirements:(i) They are reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the breach;(ii) They do not unduly restrict the persons ability to perform the functions

of a Member.

3) partial suspension of that Member for a period not exceeding six months.

4) suspension of that Member for a period not exceeding six months.

5) that the Member submits a written apology in a form specified by theStandards Sub-committee.

6) that the Member undertakes such training as the Standards Sub-committeespecifies.

7) that the Member participates in such conciliation as the Standards Sub-committee specifies.

8) partial suspension of that Member for a period not exceeding six months oruntil such time as the Member has met either of the following restrictions:(i) s/he has submitted a written apology in a form specified by the

Standards Sub-committee;(ii) s/he has undertaken such training or has participated in such

conciliation as the Standards Sub-committee specifies.

9) suspension of that member for a period not exceeding six months or until suchtime as the Member has met either of the following restrictions:(i) s/he has submitted a written apology in a form specified by the

Standards Sub-committee;(ii) s/he has undertaken such training or has participated in such

conciliation as the Standards Sub-committee specifies.

SuspensionsSuspensions will usually only be deemed appropriate in more serious cases includingbut not limited to those involving:

trying to gain an advantage or him/herself or others

trying to gain a disadvantage for others

dishonesty

breach of trust

bullying

In applying suspension or partial suspension as a sanction the committee mustconsider the implications on the Council, the Member and his/her constituents.

Members under full suspension may not:

Take part in any formal business of the authority

Have access to council facilities


42/46

Receive their council allowance

Members under full suspension should be asked to:

make their suspended status clear, including to constituents

make arrangements for another member to handle his/her constituency workto ensure continued democratic representation.

It must be noted that the parts of the Code of Conduct that apply outside of officialcapacity (ie those relating to conduct in a private capacity constituting a criminaloffence) will continue to apply to a suspended member.

The terms of a partial suspension must be set by the Standards Sub-committee atthe hearing. It may involve suspension from certain committees or restricted accessto certain areas or individuals.

Not applying a sanctionA decision to not apply a sanction may be based, in the main, on one or more of themitigating factors set out above. Alternatively, such a decision may be based on thebreach being deemed to be too trivial to warrant a sanction, or, a sanction not beingpertinent given the length of time that has passed since the incident, or, acombination of such factors.

D - Referral to the APE

Referral to the APE will normally be in cases where the Standards Sub-committee,preferably at the consideration stage, or alternatively after hearing a case, concludes

that if a breach of the Code has occurred a more severe sanction than the six monthssuspension available to it would be appropriate. A decision as to whether to seek torefer a case to the APE would be made with reference to APEs published guidanceon decisions.

APE guidance is that suspensions of more than six months are applied rarely but thatthe President is likely to accept references for matter that are of a kind that wouldmerit disqualification. Also, that disqualification is likely to be an appropriate sanctionwhen:

1) The subject Member has deliberately sought personal gain (for either

him/herself or some other person) at the public expense by exploiting his/hermembership of the Council or one of its committees;

2) The subject Member has deliberately sought to misuse his/her position inorder to disadvantage some other person;

3) The subject Member has deliberately failed to abide by the Code of Conduct,for example as a protest against the legislative scheme of which the Codeforms part. Members of local authorities are expected to uphold the law.Where the Code has been deliberately breached to reflect the subjectMembers opposition to the principles underlying the legislation, the CaseTribunal is likely to think of a disqualification of one year;

4) There have been repeated breaches of the Code of Conduct by the subject

Member;5) The subject Member has misused power or public assets for political gain;6) The subject Member has misused council property;


43/46

7) The subject Member has committed a criminal offence punishable by asentence of three months or more imprisonment.

Although it must also be noted that;1) There may be other factors not listed above which also merit disqualification.

Nor will disqualification always be appropriate even if the listed factors arepresent.

2) Disqualification may be imposed as an alternative to suspension in order toavoid an authority being inquorate or the electorate left without adequaterepresentation. Disqualification would allow by-elections to take placewhereas this would not be possible if the member concerned were suspended.

E - Other Issues to consider

1. Lateness/Absence of subject Member or key witnessesIf the subject Member is late and has been in contact with an estimated arrivaltime that the Sub-committee are satisfied with then the hearing will normally

be deferred until that time and the limits in this regard for most Councilcommittees will not apply.

If the subject Member is late and efforts at communicating with him/her havenot succeeded then the Sub-committee will wait the amount of time that itdeems fit and then deem him/her absent.

If a key witness is late then the Standards Sub-committee will considerwhether or not it is appropriate to commence the hearing and defer thatevidence until later in the proceedings.

The Standards Sub-committee will weigh up any reasons given for theabsence of a subject member or any key witnesses and, if satisfied with thereasons given, will agree for the hearing to be held on a future date. It maychoose to proceed despite the absence in circumstances including but notlimited to:

Forming an opinion that the reason given for the absence was inadequate;

No reason being given and being satisfied that the date and arrangementshad been fully communicated to the individual;

Persistent delays on the part of the individual prior to this;

A prior hearing for the same case being deferred due to the absence of thesame individual.

2. Requests for anonymitySuch requests will only have been granted at the assessment stage inexceptional circumstances where one or more of the following criteria are met:

The complainant demonstrates reasonable grounds to believe that s/he, orsomeone close to him/her, will be at risk of physical harm if his/her identityis disclosed.

The complainant is an Officer of the Council who works closely with the

subject Member and is afraid of the consequences to his/her employment ifhis/her identify is disclosed (with reference to the Councils whistle-blowingpolicy)


44/46

The complainant has provided medical evidence that s/he suffers from aserious medical condition and there are medical risks from his/her identitybeing released.

If anonymity was granted at the assessment stage then the considerationmeeting and any hearing must take all steps to preserve that anonymity.

3. Request for withdrawal of complaintIf the complainant has submitted a request for the complaint to be withdrawnsubsequent to the assessment this can be considered in making adetermination in the following regard:

Does the public interest in taking some action on the complaint outweighthe complainants desire to withdraw it?

Did the withdrawal of the complaint, and/or the complainants non-co-operation, impede the effectiveness of the investigation in a manner thatpertains to the usefulness of the findings

Can a hearing be appropriately conducted without the participation of thecomplainant?

Is there an identifiable underlying reason for the request to withdraw thecomplaint? (for example is there information to suggest the complainantmay have been pressured to withdraw the complaint?)


45/46

Determination Hearing Procedure

Step 1 - Openingthe meeting

The meeting will open in public. The Chairman wouldnormally open the meeting but, if a Chairman needs to beelected, the Monitoring Officer (or his representative) willopen the meeting and invite the appointment of a Chairman

by the Sub-committee.Step 2 Standardagenda items

The Chairman will take the Sub-committee through thestandard opening agenda items ie:

o Absence of Memberso Declaration of interestso Any urgent items

Step 3 -Introductions

The Sub-committee will introduce themselves and theChairman will invite the parties and the Officers to alsointroduce themselves. The Chairman will then outline anyprocedural matters.

Step 4 Beginningthe Hearing The Chairman will invite the Monitoring Officer (or hisrepresentative) to introduce the report and set the scene.The Chairman may invite any preliminary legal advice.

Step 5 Findingsof Fact:presentations

The Chairman will invite the investigator/Monitoring Officer topresent on the findings of fact and, when s/he has concluded,

Agenda and Reports Pack[1]

Documents

Transcript of Agenda and Reports Pack[1]