The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 introduced some important changes to the way local authorities operate.
Section 15 brought in the political balance rules which ensure that all political groups are fairly represented on committees.
Previously, it was possible for the majority group, by resolution of the council, to pack committees with its own supporters – in extreme cases, to the complete exclusion of opposition members.
The other far-reaching measure was contained in Section 5 which introduced Monitoring Officers to local government.
Section 5(2) provides:
It shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission by the authority, by any committee, or sub-committee of the authority, by any person holding any office or employment under the authority or by any joint committee on which the authority are represented constitutes, has given rise to or is likely to or would give rise to —
(a) a contravention by the authority, by any committee, or sub-committee of the authority, by any person holding any office or employment under the authority or by any such joint committee of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment to prepare a report to the authority with respect to that proposal, decision or omission.
So the Monitoring Officer’s task is to keep the council on the straight and narrow which has led some to label him/her “the council’s conscience”.
To the best of my recollection, since the resurrection of PCC in 1996, none of the several holders of this post has felt the necessity to prepare such a report.
Aren’t we lucky to have such a law-abiding council?
Another function of the Monitoring Officer is to provide members with advice and guidance on the Code of Conduct.
At the council meeting in July 2013, Cllr Bob Kilmister tried to have standing orders suspended so that the council could debate an emergency motion regarding the leader’s four-years-worth of back dated expense claims.
The suspension motion went to a recorded vote in which Cllr Jamie Adams participated.
After the vote had been taken, Cllr Tessa Hodgson stood up and asked for advice as to whether Cllr Adams should have declared an interest in this matter.
These questions are usually answered by either the Monitoring Officer or Chief Executive, but on this occasion it was Cllr Adams who stood up and explained that, as it was procedural motion, he didn’t need to declare an interest.
Cllr Hodgson, who happens to be my daughter, was not happy with this reply, so she emailed the Monitoring Officer.
The complete correspondence follows:
From: Tessa Hodgson
Sent: 25 July 2013 19:00Dear Monitoring Officer
Following last week’s meeting of full council, I am writing to ask for your guidance and advice on the matter of Cllr Adams’ failure to declare an interest and leave the meeting, during the debate and vote on Cllr Kilmister’s proposal, that standing orders be suspended, so the subject of Cllr Adams’ expenses could be debated.
Could you provide me with your opinion as to whether he did have an interest to declare and if so, what avenues are open to me in order to make a complaint.
Kind regards
Tessa
From: Monitoring Officer
Sent: 30 July 2013 08:54Hi Tessa,
The business being debated was not directly linked to the matter of expenses only to a procedural matter and no interest was applicable. The decision on the procedural matter does not prevent the expenses claim being raised as a notice of motion at a future council meeting, when there may be an interest to declare depending on the wording of the motion.
There is also a precedent set by the PSOW [Ombudsman] in a PCNPA [National Park] referral where a Member was allowed to vote on a motion to determine that an item of business should be heard with the public and press excluded and the item of business to be discussed in camera related to a matter in which the Member had an interest.
Monitoring Officer
From: Tessa Hodgson
Sent: 31 July 2013 13:21Dear Monitoring Officer
Thanks for your prompt reply.
I have to disagree with your first point. Cllr Kilmister made it perfectly clear that he wanted to suspend standing orders in order that the matter of the leader’s expenses could be debated. So there was a direct and clear link.
As I understand your advice regarding the PCNPA case, no interest arises on a procedural motion (exclusion of the public, suspension of standing orders, etc.) even when the item of business to be discussed relates to a matter in which the member has an interest.
Can you confirm that my understanding of your advice is correct?
Kind regards
Tessa
From: Monitoring Officer
Sent: 31 July 2013Hi Tessa,
I confirm that you have stated the essence of my comments.
The decision on procedural matters is a separate issue from the substantive motion – linked but not directly relating to an item of business where an interest was evident. The procedure for dealing with council business and compliance with the Procedural Rules is applicable to all Members. Although the purported motion was said to deal with the Leader’s expenses the details were vague and, even if the procedural motion had been adopted, whether there was an interest would be a consideration for the Member when the details of the motion were circulated to Council.
Monitoring Officer
I was the complainant in the National Park case which the Monitoring Officer claimed as a precedent for the proposition that members needn’t declare an interest when procedural motions are debated.
This involved the presence of Cllr John Allen-Mirehouse during a meeting of the National Park Authority which considered his claim for reimbursement of some £40,000 in legal expenses that he incurred when defending himself against an earlier Ombudsman’s finding that he had breached the Code.
Item 18 on the agenda was a motion to exclude the public from the meeting (the procedural motion) and agenda item 19 concerned the debate on whether Cllr Allen-Mirehouse should be reimbursed (the substantive motion).
The relevant sections of the Ombudsman’s findings, of which I, as the complainant, was provided with a copy, are published below.
So, in the Monitoring Officer’s example, not only did the Ombudsman not say that “a Member was allowed to vote on a motion to determine that an item of business should be heard with the public and press excluded and the item of business to be discussed in camera related to a matter in which the Member had an interest”, but he actually said: “…as his interest was prejudicial he was required by paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Code to immediately withdraw from the room.”
It is difficult to understand how PCC’s Monitoring Officer – a qualified solicitor – could so completely misrepresent the Ombudsman’s findings.
One explanation might be that he had received the information second-hand and the message had become distorted in transmission.
However, that can’t be the reason because the Ombudsman’s report concludes: “A copy of this report has been forwarded to the Monitoring Officer of Pembrokeshire County Council.”
P.S. In the event, despite finding that Cllr Allen-Mirehouse had breached the Code during both agenda items 18 and 19, the Ombudsman decided to take no further action on the grounds that he didn’t think it likely that the standards committee would impose a sanction.
If they wouldn’t impose a sanction on someone who took part in a meeting where he stood to gain £40,000, what does a member have to do to get punished.
And this is the same Ombudsman who pursued Malcolm Calver all the way to the High Court for the serious offence of making snide remarks on his website about his colleagues on Manorbier Community Council.
Pancake landing
There has been much comment on that other website about the gut-wrenching speech by Cllr Rev Hugh George during last Friday’s debate on the motion of no confidence in his Leader Cllr Jamie Adams.
Understandably, his foray into the topology of two-dimensional pancakes has caused much merriment among the commentariat.
However, what struck Old Grumpy about Cllr Rev George’s speech was his complete failure to address the issue of whether Cllr Adams and his sidekick Pugh had lied to full council on December 12 about what they saw when they climbed into the attic at Coronation School Pembroke Dock.
I assume that is because he knows that what I am saying is true and he would prefer not to think about it.
However, he felt able to describe his Leader as an honourable man without going to the trouble of defending his honour by refuting my allegations.
Anyone who cannot see the contradiction between being honourable and standing up in council and spouting deliberate untruths clearly occupies a different moral universe than most people.
However, this is not a new departure for Cllr Rev George because he obviously couldn’t see anything dishonourable in going about at the last election telling his constituents that the £300,000 spent on tarmac in his ward in the previous twelve months was all down to “positive politics” and “working together” when in fact when I made enquiries about this I was told it was “routine maintenance”.
Nor, as you can see for yourselves, could he see anything dishonourable in using a photo of children in Lamphey School, obtained in his role as Cabinet member for education, in his election video without first seeking the permission of their parents.
And, when it came to the unlawful use of council computers for party political purposes by his cabinet colleague Rob Lewis, Cllr Rev George even managed to turn the argument on its head by claiming that: “His main aim is to help Pembrokeshire. Simply put, in my mind, Rob tried to help people on the wrong computer. I would rather support someone who’s doing the right type of thing on the wrong computer than people who are trying to destroy people on the right computer.”
“Simply” and “my mind” in the same sentence neatly sums it up.
As we all know, from what Cllr Lewis told the Ombudsman’s investigator, “his main aim” was to maintain himself and his IPG (as it was then known) cronies in office.
And, of course, in the eyes of power-hungry autocrats like Cllr Rev George, anything designed to that end is, by definition, honourable.
As we also know, Cllr Lewis told the Ombudsman’s investigator that he had paid a Mr Clive James £90 – £100 to print his election leaflets, while he told the returning officer on his election return that he had bought fifty six pounds-worth of paper and ink cartridges for this purpose.
Logic demands that one of these statements must be untrue.
But Cllr Rev George can see nothing wrong with that either.
After telling council that Jamie Adams was an honourable man, he went on to say “He won’t stab you in the back. He will look you in the eye, etc”.
Now I have it on good authority that, at a secret meeting of the IPPG earlier this year, Cllr Adams told his loyal supporters that Grumpette and I were “the two most poisonous people in Pembrokeshire”.
I have attended a number of meetings with Cllr Adams recently as the representative of the unaffiliated members.
I can only assume his failure to look me in the eye and tell me what he thinks about the pair of us is because it slipped his mind.
After all, with one thing and another, he has quite a lot on his plate.