Agenda item

To consider a report (Report No: 247) on a complaint against a councillor, prepared by the Monitoring Officer.  The Investigating Officer Report is contained under Item 13 on the Part 2 Agenda. 

The Committee is asked to consider what, if any, further action that they wish to take following the information provided in the report.

As Councillor Waterhouse had declared an interest in this item he withdrew from the meeting at this point and did not take part in the discussion. 

In Councillor Waterhouse’s absence Councillor Ibrahim was appointed Chair for this item. 

Councillor Rye made a statement regarding the case:

“Members will be aware that the councillor, under investigation, has been subject to disciplinary action by both the Conservative Group and the Conservative Party.

I attended the relevant group meetings and was part of the decision making in relation to the Conservative Group’s disciplinary process which was determined by secret ballot based upon three possible options.  I took no action in relation to the Conservative Party’s disciplinary process.

Whilst the subject matter on tonight’s agenda is clearly related, I regard the specific issues within the investigating officer’s report to be sufficiently different to enable me to take part in the discussion with an open mind and to comment on the basis of the facts before me this evening.  Whilst feeling able to participate in the discussion, I will be abstaining from the vote in the interests of fairness and transparency and to remove any possible feeling of bias or predetermination.” 

John Austin presented his report on the complaint to members, highlighting the following:

·       Two complaints against the councillor were received in December 2012 and were referred to the Councillor Conduct Committee meeting in February 2013. 

·       As the complaint had been referred to the police, it was agreed that the case should be put on hold pending the final decision on any criminal prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service. 

·       In February 2014, the Committee was advised that the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to take any further action and members agreed that the complaint should be should be investigated.

·       Because of his previous involvement, the Monitoring Officer asked Jill Bayley, one of the Council’s principal lawyers, to carry out an investigation.  Her report was due to be considered in part 2 of the meeting, with members asked to decide whether or not the Councillor had breached the Councillor Code of Conduct.  (Min ??? Refers)

Ruth Mckee, from the Enfield Advertiser, said that she thought that the case should be considered in public.  She felt that as the matter was already public and had been widely discussed, there was no fear of prejudicing the case and that it was therefore in the public interest that the hearing be held in public. 

Asmat Hussain, Assistant Director Legal Services, advised that there were some aspects of the case which were not in the public domain, that the issues being discussed involved personal data belonging to individuals and therefore it was not appropriate that it should be held in public.  The public interest test did not override the need for confidentiality, as the identities of the complainants could be disclosed. 

The outcome of the complaint would be made public although due to election purdah restrictions, this would not be until after the Local Government Elections on 22 May 2014.